Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE INTERRELATION BETWEEN PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’
CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING, LEARNING APPROACHES
AND SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
SEMRA SAÇICI
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS
EDUCATION
JANUARY 2013
Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences
Prof. Dr. Meliha ALTUNIŞIK
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Science
Prof. Dr. Jale ÇAKIROĞLU
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.
Prof. Dr. Ceren ÖZTEKİN TEKKAYA Prof. Dr. Jale ÇAKIROĞLU
Co-Supervisor Supervisor
Examining Committee Members
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yezdan BOZ (METU, SSME)
Prof. Dr. Jale ÇAKIROĞLU (METU, ELE)
Prof. Dr. Ceren ÖZTEKİN TEKKAYA (METU, ELE)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Semra SUNGUR VURAL (METU, ELE)
Assist. Prof. Dr. Elvan ŞAHİN (METU, ELE)
iii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced
all material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last name : Semra SAÇICI
Signature :
iv
ABSTRACT
THE INTERRELATION BETWEEN PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’
CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING, LEARNING APPROACHES
AND SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS
SAÇICI, Semra
M. S., Department of Elementary Science and Mathematics Education
Supervisor : Prof. Dr. Jale ÇAKIROĞLU
Co-Supervisor : Prof. Dr. Ceren ÖZTEKİN TEKKAYA
January 2013, 108 pages
This study examined preservice science teachers’ conceptions about teaching and
learning, self-efficacy beliefs, learning approaches and images of themselves as a
science teachers. The study was also interested in examining the possible
relationships among preservice science teachers’ conceptions about teaching and
learning, learning approaches and self-efficacy beliefs.
The study was carried out during 2011-2012 spring semester at three different public
universities in Ankara. A total of 208 senior preservice science teachers who were
volunteers involved. Data were collected through Draw-A-Science-Teacher-Test
Checklist, Teaching and Learning Conceptions Questionnaire, Science Teaching
Efficacy Belief Instrument, and The Learning Approach Questionnaire and analyzed
by descriptive statistics, paired-sample t-test and canonical correlation analysis.
Paired-sample t-test analyses results showed that preservice science teachers prefer
constructivist conception more than traditional conception; and meaningful learning
v
approaches more than rote learning approaches. Besides, preservice science teachers
were also found to have generally high sense of self-efficacy beliefs in science
teaching. Moreover, the results of the DASTT-C showed that preservice science
teachers’ perspectives of science teaching conception is 42.7% student-centered,
7.0% teacher-centered and 50.3% neither student-centered nor teacher-centered.
Furthermore, the canonical correlation analysis revealed that the first canonical
variate demonstrated that preservice science teachers’ constructivist conception and
traditional conception are associated with their self-efficacy beliefs and learning
approaches.
Keywords: Conceptions about Teaching and Learning, DASTT-C, Learning
Approaches, Preservice Science Teachers, Self-Efficacy Beliefs,
vi
ÖZ
FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ÖĞRETME VE ÖĞRENME
KAVRAMLARI, ÖĞRENME YAKLAŞIMLARI VE ÖZ-YETERLİK İNANÇLARI
ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ
SAÇICI, Semra
Yüksek Lisans, İlköğretim Fen ve Matematik Alanları Eğitimi Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi : Prof. Dr. Jale ÇAKIROĞLU
Ortak Tez Yöneticisi : Prof. Dr. Ceren ÖZTEKİN TEKKAYA
Ocak 2013, 108 sayfa
Bu çalışmanın amacı fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları, öz-
yeterlik inançları ve kendilerinin fen bilgisi öğretmeni olarak görüntülerini
ilgilendiren bir profil oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışma aynı zamanda fen
bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının öğretme ve öğrenme kavramları, öğrenme yaklaşımları
ve öz-yeterlik inançları arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır.
Bu çalışma, 2011-2012 öğretim yılı bahar döneminde Ankara ilinde bulunan 3 farklı
devlet üniversitesinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya gönüllü olarak 208 fen bilgisi
öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Veriler, “Draw-A-Science-Teacher-Test / Bir Fen
Öğretmeni Çiz”, “Öğretme ve Öğrenme Anlayışları Ölçeği”, “Öğrenme Yaklaşımları
Anketi” ve “Fen Bilgisi Öğretimine Yönelik İnançlar Anketi” ile elde edilmiş ve
eşleştirilmiş örneklem t-testi ve Kanonik Korelâsyon analizleri kullanılarak
değerlendirilmiştir.
vii
Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının yapılandırmacı anlayışı, geleneksel anlayışa oranla
daha fazla tercih ettiği görülmüştür. Aynı şekilde, anlamlı öğrenme yaklaşımlarının
fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları tarafından, ezberci öğrenme yaklaşımlarına oranla daha
fazla tercih edildiği belirlendi. Ayrıca, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen bilgisi
öğretimine yönelik öz-yeterlik inançlarının genellikle yüksek düzeyde olduğu tespit
edilmiştir. Bununla beraber, fen bilgisi öğretmeni çizimi belirtke tablosu (DASTT-C,
The Draw a Science Teacher Test Checklist) sonuçları fen bilgisi öğretmen
adaylarının bakış açılarının %42.7 öğrenci-merkezli, %7.0 öğretmen-merkezli ve
%50.3 ne öğrenci-merkezli ne de öğretmen-merkezli olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca,
birinci kanonik olasılıksal değişken çifti incelendiğinde fen bilgisi öğretmen
adaylarının geleneksel ve yapılandırmacı anlayışlarının; onların öğrenme
yaklaşımları ve fen bilgisi öğretimine yönelik inançları ile ilişkili olduğunu
göstermiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adayları, Fen Bilgisi Öğretimine Yönelik
İnançlar, DASTT-C, Öğretme ve Öğrenme Anlayışları, Öğrenme Yaklaşımları,
viii
To My Parents and My Fiance
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Jale
ÇAKIROĞLU for her invaluable suggestions, encouragement, motivation, patience,
and guidance throughout this study. Thank you sincerely.
I would also like to thank my co-supervisor Prof. Dr. Ceren ÖZTEKİN TEKKAYA
for her invaluable suggestions, guidance and knowledgeable recommendations
throughout this study. Thank you sincerely.
I would also like to thank to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Semra SUNGUR VURAL, Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Yezdan BOZ, and Assist. Prof. Dr. Elvan ŞAHİN for their invaluable comments
on the committee. I am very thankful to my parents Nihal and Yılmaz SAÇICI, my
brother Emrah SAÇICI and my sister Nihal SAÇICI for their encouragement and
moral support. I would also like to send a special thank to my fiance, Mehmet Ali
TAHANCALIO for his infinite moral support. My parents and my fiance always
believed in me.
I would also like to thank Res. Assist. Eray ŞENTÜRK, Res. Assist. Gülsüm
AKYOL, Res. Assist. Ayşe YENİLMEZ TÜRKOĞLU and Esra ÇİMEN for their
suggestions and comments.
I would also would like to thank Prof. Dr. Jon PEDERSEN and Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Ayşe AYPAY for their help.
I need to acknowledge to TÜBİTAK for financial support during my master’s
education.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM...........................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iv
ÖZ ............................................................................................................................. vi
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................ viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. xv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Significance of the Study ........................................................................... 5
1.2 Definition of Important Terms .................................................................. 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 9
2.1 Teachers’ Conceptions about Teaching and Learning .............................. 9
2.1.1 The Use of Mental Models/Drawings within the Perspective of
Teaching and Learning Conceptions ..................................................... 14
2.2 Learning Approaches ............................................................................... 18
2.3 Self-Efficacy Beliefs................................................................................ 27
2.4 Teachers’ Conceptions about Teaching and Learning, Learning
Approaches and Self-efficacy Beliefs ..................................................... 33
3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 38
3.1 Research Design ...................................................................................... 38
3.2 Sample ..................................................................................................... 38
3.3 Instruments .............................................................................................. 39
3.3.1 Draw-A-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C) ...................... 40
3.3.2 Teaching and Learning Conceptions Questionnaire (TLCQ) ............. 41
3.3.3 Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B) .................. 41
3.3.4 The Learning Approach Questionnaire (LAQ) ................................... 43
xi
3.4 Procedure ................................................................................................. 43
3.5 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 44
3.6 Assumptions and Limitations of Research .............................................. 44
3.6.1 Assumptions ........................................................................................ 44
3.6.2 Limitations .......................................................................................... 45
3.7 Internal Validity of the Study ................................................................. 45
3.8 External Validity of the Study ................................................................. 46
4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 47
4.1 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................... 47
4.1.1 Research Question 1 ........................................................................... 47
4.1.1.1 Analyzing the Categorization of DASTT-C Scores ....................... 49
4.1.2 Research Question 2 ........................................................................... 58
4.2 Inferential Statistics ................................................................................. 59
4.2.1 Research Question 3 ........................................................................... 60
4.2.2 Research Question 4 ........................................................................... 61
4.2.3 Research Question 5 ........................................................................... 63
4.2.3.1 Canonical Correlation Analysis ..................................................... 66
4.3 Summary of the Results ........................................................................... 68
5. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ......................... 69
5.1 Conclusions and Discussions of the Results ........................................... 69
5.2 Implications of the Study ......................................................................... 76
5.3 Recommendations of the Study ............................................................... 77
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 79
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 89
A. PERMISSION OBTAINED FROM ETHICAL COMMITEE ...................... 89
B. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION FORM .................................................... 93
C. BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS SURVEY ...................................... 94
D. TEACHING AND LEARNING CONCEPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE ....... 95
E. LEARNING APPROACH QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................ 97
F. SCIENCE TEACHING EFFICACY BELIEF INSTRUMENT .................... 99
G. DASTT-C INSTRUMENT SHEET ............................................................. 101
H. DASTT-C SCORE SHEET .......................................................................... 102
xii
I. HISTOGRAMS OF THE SET 1 AND SET 2 VARIABLES ..................... 103
J. SCATTER PLOTS OF THE SET 1 AND SET 2 VARIABLES ................. 104
K. SOME EXAMPLES from DASTT-C .......................................................... 105
L. TEZ FOTOKOPİ İZİN FORMU .................................................................. 108
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 2.1 Summary of the Characteristics of Deep and Surface Approaches to
Learning ................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.1 Background Characteristics of Preservice Science Teachers .................. 39
Table 3.2 Categorization of DASTT-C scores of Preservice Science Teachers ...... 41
Table 3.3 Aim, Subscales, Number of Items and Reliabilities of TLCQ, STEBI-B
and LAQ ................................................................................................................... 42
Table 4.1 Distribution of Responses to STEBI-B Sample Items ............................. 59
Table 4.2 Results of the Paired-Sample t-test Regarding Constructivist Conception
and Traditional Conception Scores .......................................................................... 60
Table 4.3 Distribution of Responses to TLCQ Sample Items .................................. 61
Table 4.4 Results of the Paired-Sample t-test Regarding LAQ-M and LAQ-R
Scores… ................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4.5 Distribution of Responses to LAQ Sample Items .................................... 63
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the SET 1 and SET 2 Variables ........................ 64
Table 4.7 Correlations Between the SET 1 and SET 2 Variables ............................ 65
Table 4.8 Correlations, Standardized Canonical Coefficients for the First and Second
Canonical Variates ................................................................................................... 66
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Diagrammatic representation of the difference between efficacy
expectations and outcome expectations. .................................................................. 28
Figure 4.1 Results of DASTT-C Categorization in Terms of Percentage ................ 48
Figure 4.2 Teacher-centered DASTT Picture and Preservice Science Teachers’
Explanation .............................................................................................................. 50
Figure 4.3 Middle Category --Neither Teacher-centered nor Student-centered--
DASTT Picture and Preservice Science Teachers’ Explanation .............................. 53
Figure 4.4 Student-centered DASTT Picture and Preservice Science Teachers’
Explanation .............................................................................................................. 56
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABCC Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory
DAST-C Draw-a-Scientist-Test Checklist
DASTT-C Draw-a-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist
ERIC Educational Resources Information Center
LAQ Learning Approach Questionnaire
LAQ-M Meaningful Learning Approach Questionnaire
LAQ-R Rote Learning Approach Questionnaire
PSTE Personal Science Teaching Efficacy
SPQ Study Process Questionnaire
SSCI Social Science Citation Index
STAD Student Teams Achievement Divisions
STEBI-B Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument
STOE Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy
TES Teacher Efficacy Scale
TLCQ Teaching and Learning Conception Questionnaire
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The effects of teachers’ beliefs on their instructional practices in science have
attracted attention of researchers in the area of science education for many years. For
instance, Pajares (1992) asserts that “beliefs teachers hold influence their perceptions
and judgements, which, in turn affect their behavior in classrooms” (p. 307).
Similarly, van Driel, Verloop and de Vos (1998) stated that science teachers’
epistemologies including beliefs about science, teaching and learning science
influence the type of their instructional behaviors in the science classrooms. For
example, a science teacher’s beliefs about teaching science, learning science, and his
self-efficacy beliefs may not be hold apart from his beliefs about applying
cooperative learning in the science classroom (Jones & Carter, 2007). Therefore, as a
way to yield definitive conclusions, researchers saw promise in examining and
understanding teachers’ beliefs involving beliefs about teaching and learning, which
influence and form teachers’ conceptions about teaching and learning, (Aypay, 2011;
Chan & Elliott, 2004; Cheng, Chan, Tang, & Cheng, 2009), about approaches to
learning (Christensen, Massey, Isaacs, & Synott, 1995; Novak & Gowin, 1984;
Saunders, 1998; Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999), and about teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs (Czerniak, 1990; Finson, Riggs, & Jesunathadas 1999; Enochs &
Riggs, 1990; Savran-Gencer & Cakiroglu, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2007).
The conceptions about teaching and learning defined “as the beliefs held by teachers
about their preferred ways of teaching and learning. These include the meaning of
teaching and learning and the roles of teacher and pupils” (Chan & Elliott, 2004, p.
819). Several researchers categorized the conceptions about teaching and learning in
two dimensions: traditional/teacher-centered, and constructivist/student-centered
(Aypay, 2011; Chan & Elliott, 2004; Cheng et al., 2009). The traditional conception,
also referred to teacher-centered instruction, stresses learning by getting information
2
from teachers and textbooks by considering teacher as transmitter of the knowledge
as well as student as the recipient of the knowledge or passive learner (Chan &
Elliott, 2004). On the other hand, the constructivist conception, also referred to
student-centered instruction, stresses the importance of experience and active
learning process that encourages discovery, collaboration and critical thinking by
considering teacher as a counselor as well as student as an active participant (Chan &
Elliott, 2004). Moreover, researches highlighted that there is huge shift from
traditional conceptions to constructivist conceptions in education context (Aypay,
2011; Chan, Tan & Khoo, 2007; Eren, 2010; Isikoglu, Basturk & Karaca, 2009).
Therefore, in recent years, research on teachers’ conceptions about teaching and
learning has attracted attention in the literature (Aypay, 2011; Chan, 2003; Chan &
Elliott, 2004; Pajares, 1992). Accordingly, numerous studies disclosed that teachers’
conceptions about teaching and learning have been associated to teachers’ images of
themselves as a science teacher (El-Deghaidy, 2006; Elmas, Demirdogen & Geban,
2011; Thomas & Pedersen, 1998a; Thomas, Pederson, & Finson, 2001; Yilmaz,
Turkmen, Pedersen & Cavas, 2007), approaches to learning (Christensen et al.,
1995; Gow & Kember, 1993; Trigwell et al., 1999), and self-efficacy beliefs
(Czerniak, 1990; Finson et al., 1999; Gurbuzturk & Sad, 2009).
Teachers’ images of themselves as a science teacher, for example, were used as an
indication of their conceptions about teaching and learning –whether they are
traditional or constructivist-based. The images can be defined as “an idea or mental
representation, a conception with a visual or physical flavour, an experiential
meaning, a context or history, and a metaphorical, generative potential” (Weber,
Mitchell, & Nicolai, 1996, p. 6). According to Pajares (1992) lifestyle of teachers
affects their images and beliefs about teaching and learning. Particularly, preservice
science teachers develop their teaching images originated from their experiences
during years of student (Calderhead & Robson, 1991). To determine teachers’
images about science teaching and learning, the increasing number of researchers has
taken advantage of their drawings (Finson, 2001; Finson et al., 1999; Thomas &
Pedersen, 2003; Thomas et al., 2001; Yilmaz et al., 2007) since their personal
experiences, theories, and perceptions of science teaching could be examined
3
through their drawings (El-Deghaidy, 2006; Elmas et al., 2011; Thomas, & Pedersen,
1998a; Thomas et al., 2001; Yilmaz et al., 2007). In 2001, Thomas et al. developed
the Draw-A-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C) to enlighten the preservice
elementary teachers’ unforgettable episodes within their conceptions about how to
teach elementary science. It provides a reflective opportunity for elementary
preservice teachers to “picture themselves as elementary science teachers; place
themselves along a teaching theory continuum; and consider the ways in which they
develop their own science teaching beliefs” (Thomas et al., 2001, p. 298). The study
revealed that drawings reflecting belief systems of teacher candidates can be used as
an alternative measurement tool.
In addition to teachers’ images of themselves as a science teacher, conceptions about
teaching and learning is related to another variable called as learning approaches.
Learning approach can be defined as “… the ways in which students go about their
academic tasks, thereby affecting the nature of the learning outcome” (Biggs, 1994,
p. 318). However, according to Saunders (1998), learning orientation, or approach, is
seen as an extent to which students adopt rote/surface or meaningful/deep learning
approaches while learning new concepts, ideas. According to Novak and Gowin
(1984), meaningful learners refer to individuals who associate new knowledge to
related concepts and their existing propositions. In contrast, rote learners refer to
individuals who get new knowledge by rote memorization and arbitrarily integrate
this new knowledge into their knowledge structures without interacting with existing
one (Novak & Gowin, 1984). According to Gow and Kember (1993), teachers’
conceptions of teaching had a considerable impact on their students’ learning
approaches. Similarly, Trigwell et al.’s (1999) study revealed that when teachers
chose student-centered teaching approach, their students tended more potentially to
choose deep learning approach and less potentially to choose surface learning
approach. Correspondingly, it might be concluded that learning is seen as a process
related to students and the tasks they involved in during instruction. At this point, it
should be questioned: “What happens when the teacher is seen as the learner?”
(Ciminelli, 2009). In the view of Watters and Watters (2007), deep understanding is
4
an essential purpose of science teaching. For this reason, determining teachers’
approaches to learning is important.
Self-efficacy beliefs are another important variable as it plays a role in teaching and
learning conceptions of teachers. Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs can be defined as “a
teacher’s judgement of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of
student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or
unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p. 783). Moreover,
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs became the focus of many research studies in the
literature. For instance, Finson et al. (1999) claimed that low efficacious teachers
tended to teach in an authoritative way and with teacher-centered thought. In
contrast, when teachers have high sense of self-efficacy, their teaching tends to be
characterized by more student-centered thought, the use of more inquiry approaches
and the beliefs that they can help their students to succeed (Finson et al., 1999).
Correspondingly, Czerniak (1990) claimed that while high efficacious teachers tend
to use student-centered conception, low efficacious teachers are more potentially to
use teacher-centered conception. In the same manner, Gurbuzturk and Sad (2009)
investigated the relationships between preservice teachers’ traditional vs.
constructivist educational beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs. The researchers found that
as preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about student engagement to the lesson
increased, their constructivist teacher beliefs increased. On the other hand, as
preservice teachers’ general self-efficacy beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs about
classroom management and using instructional strategies increased, their traditional
teacher beliefs increased (Gurbuzturk & Sad, 2009). Based on the aforementioned
literature, determining teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching is
also important.
All in all, the review of the related literature showed the importance of the teachers’
conceptions about teaching and learning, their approaches to learning, and their self-
efficacy beliefs. In this aspect, the following research questions were explored in the
present study:
5
1. What images do preservice science teachers have of themselves as science
teachers?
2. What are the preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding
science teaching?
3. What are the teaching and learning conceptions adopted by preservice science
teachers?
4. What is the learning approach adopted by preservice science teachers?
5. What is the relationship between preservice science teachers’ teaching and
learning conceptions self-efficacy beliefs, and learning approaches?
1.1 Significance of the Study
The previous research examined the variables of the present study including teaching
and learning conceptions, self-efficacy beliefs and learning approaches of preservice
science teachers. In the light of these studies, it can be concluded that the variables of
the present study play important roles in preservice teachers’ future classroom
behavior and instruction. Although there used to be traditional classrooms in Turkey,
as of the year 2004, constructivist classrooms in which students construct their own
knowledge by the assistance of their teachers have been emphasized within the
science and techonology curriculum (Kızılgunes, 2007). Similarly, teacher education
programs were restructured according to constructivist theory, multiple-intelligence
theory and student-centered teaching approaches (Yılmaz et al., 2007).
Consequently, preservice teachers have been educated in and encouraged to apply
teaching strategies depends on constructivism and inquiry (Yılmaz et al., 2007).
However, Pajares (1992) asserted that teachers are more likely to adopt curriculum
reforms if such reforms consistent with their instructional beliefs and maintained that
“unexplored entering beliefs may be responsible for the perpetuation of antiquated
and ineffectual teaching practices” (Pajares, 1992, p. 328). Similarly, in the view of
Prawat (1992), if teachers are encouraged to rethink and reexamine their existing
beliefs, many problems related with the implemantation of student-centered approach
could be overwhelmed. Since teachers are central to science education and also the
leading actor/actress performing new curricular reform in their classrooms, the
6
success of such curricular reforms in education depends mostly upon teachers.
Moreover, it has been claimed that it is not an easy process to change preservice
teachers’ conceptions about teaching and learning, especially preservice teacher with
low sense of self-efficacy beliefs (Gurbuzturk, Duruhan, & Sad, 2009). Since
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, while strong sense of self-efficacy beliefs is a desired
characteristics of a teacher (Savran & Cakiroglu, 2007), are once established, they
usually are difficult to change (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Furthermore, Thomas et al. (2001) claimed that there is a powerful effect of
traditional science learning experiences on elementary teachers’ preferred way of
science teaching: student-centered or teacher-centered. As a result, all of these might
raise a new problem that is the lack of teachers adopting new curricular reform,
having strong sense of self-efficacy beliefs, and also having meaningful approaches
to learning to meet the criteria of science and techonology curriculum in 2004.
Therefore, determining the relationship between preservice science teachers’
conceptions about teaching and learning, self-efficacy beliefs, and learning
approaches, before their graduation, is gaining a vital importance since a well-
prepared teaching force is necessary for effective science education (Weiss,
Banilower, McMahon & Smith, 2001). Considering the importance, just as
Gurbuzturk et al. (2009) pointed out that teacher education can be seen as
composition of belief systems. Thus, it directs science teacher educators ,firstly, to
take pre-existing preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, conceptions and
approaches to learning into consideration and then modify, or develop them further
(Gurbuzturk et al., 2009). Therefore, the current study was useful and base for
making developments in science teacher education programs, contributing the
judgements and decisions of science teacher educators. Consequently, science
teacher educators could help preservice science teachers to become aware of their
beliefs and conceptions (Chan & Elliott, 2004) and how these conceptions about
teaching and learning are applied in classroom settings. Regarding these important
variables of the present study, the majority of previous studies concentrated on the
relation between teachers’ images about themselves as science teachers and their
science teaching efficacy; or the relation between preservice teachers’ teaching and
learning conceptions and their students’ approaches to learning. However, there is no
7
research investigating the relationship among preservice science teachers’ learning
approaches, their science teaching self-efficacy beliefs and their conceptions about
teaching and learning, simultaneously. So, current study attempted to extend the
related literature and provide more detailed picture on these variables.
1.2 Definition of the Important Terms
Image: “An idea or mental representation, a conception with a visual or physical
flavour, an experiantial meaning, a context or history, and a metaphorical, generative
potential” (Weber et al., 1996, p. 6).
The conceptions about teaching and learning: “The beliefs held by teachers about
their preferred ways of teaching and learning. These include the meaning of teaching
and learning and the roles of teacher and pupils” (Chan & Elliott, 2004, p.819).
The constructivist conception: “It emphasizes the creation of active learning
environments that permit critical thinking, discovery and collaboration” (Chan &
Elliott, 2004, p.819).
The traditional conception: “The teacher acts as the source of knowledge and
students as passive recipient of knowledge. Such model/conception emphasizes
learning by receiving information, especially from the teacher and from textbooks, to
help students encounter and learn well-defined concepts” (Chan & Elliott, 2004,
p.819).
Preservice science teachers: Student teachers who are studying at the elementary
science teacher education department of the universities.
Learning approaches: “The ways in which students go about their academic tasks,
thereby affecting the nature of the learning outcome” (Biggs, 1994, p. 318).
8
Meaningful learners: Individuals who associate new knowledge to related concepts
and their existing propositions. (Novak & Gowin, 1984).
Rote learners: Individuals who get new knowledge by rote memorization and
integrate this new knowledge into their knowledge structures without interacting
with existing one (Novak & Gowin, 1984).
Self-efficacy: “Beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to produce given attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).
Teacher self-efficacy: “A teacher’s judgement of his or her capabilities to bring
about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those
students who may be difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001, p. 783).
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review is to provide framework for the investigation of
the relationships among preservice science teachers’ conceptions about teaching and
learning, learning approach and science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. For this
specified purpose, related literature are reviewed and presented in four main sections.
The first section reports preservice elementary science teachers’ conceptions about
teaching and learning within historical perspective. Also, the subtopic of the first
section includes information about the use of mental models within the perspective
of teaching and learning conceptions. The second section presents the learning
approaches. The third section is about the conceptualization of self-efficacy beliefs.
The fourth section of the review focuses on the relationships between preservice
teachers’ conceptions about teaching and learning, learning approaches and self-
efficacy beliefs.
2.1 Teachers’ Conceptions about Teaching and Learning
Conceptions were defined in the literature as “Conceptions are specific meanings
attached to phenomena which then mediate our response to situations involving those
phenomena…In effect, we view the world through the lenses of our conceptions,
interpreting and acting in accordance with our understanding of the world.” (Pratt,
1992, p. 204). Numerous studies in teacher education have suggested that teachers’
beliefs have an impact on their conceptions in classroom teaching (Aypay 2011;
Chan & Elliott, 2004; Cheng et al., 2009). The conceptions about teaching and
learning refer to “the beliefs held by teachers about their preferred ways of teaching
and learning. These include the meaning of teaching and learning and the roles of
teacher and pupils” (Chan & Elliott, 2004, p. 819). The review of the related
literature showed that conceptions about teaching and learning have been categorized
under two dimensions: traditional teaching/learning model and constructivist
10
teaching/learning model. However, there are various names used for categories of the
conceptions about teaching and learning such as teacher-centered, student-centered
(Kember, 1997), learning-centered, teaching-centered (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001),
and traditional teaching/learning model, constructivist teaching/learning model
(Chan & Elliott, 2004). Although the names and the categories of the conceptions
about teaching and learning changed time to time or study to study, these categories
refers same meaning. For example, Chan and Elliott (2004) expressed that the
traditional teaching/learning conception, also referred teacher-centered instruction,
stresses learning by getting information from teachers and textbooks by considering
teacher as transmitter of the knowledge as well as student as the recipient of the
knowledge or passive learner. On the other hand, the constructivist teaching/learning
conception, also called student-centered instruction, stresses the importance of
experience and active learning process that encourage critical thinking, discovery and
cooperation by considering teacher as counselor as well as student as active
participant (Chan & Elliott, 2004). To avoid confusion, Chan and Elliott’s terms
were used for the categories of the conceptions about teaching and learning
throughout the present study.
Numerous studies indicated that conceptions about teaching and learning have been
linked to epistemological beliefs (Aypay 2011; Chan & Elliott, 2004; Cheng et al.,
2009), nature of science (Tsai, 2002), teaching and learning environment (Struyven,
Dochy,& Janssens, 2010), constructivism (Kabapınar, 2010; Plourde & Alawiye,
2003; Prawat, 1992; Uzuntiryaki, Boz, & Kirbulut, 2010), teachers’ images of
themselves as a science teacher (El-Deghaidy, 2006; Elmas, Demirdogen & Geban,
2011; Thomas & Pedersen, 1998a; Thomas, Pederson, & Finson, 2001; Yilmaz,
Turkmen, Pedersen & Cavas, 2007), approaches to learning (Gow & Kember, 1993;
Richardson, 2005; Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999), and self-efficacy beliefs
(Czerniak, 1990; Finson et al., 1999; Gurbuzturk & Sad, 2009). For instance, Tsai
(2002) investigated the relationship among teachers’ beliefs about teaching science,
learning science and nature of science. The researcher interviewed with thirty-seven
secondary school science teachers, who study in physics and chemistry, in Twain. As
a result of interviews, teachers’ beliefs about teaching science, learning science and
11
nature of science were classified as ‘traditional’, or ‘process’, or ‘constructivist’
respectively. In traditional category, teaching science was defined as knowledge
transmission from teacher and learning science was defined as receiving knowledge
from reliable sources. Process category includes both teaching and learning science
as an activity focused the process of the science. In constructivist category, while
teaching science was defined as assisting students to construct their knowledge,
learning science was defined as constructing personal own meaning (Tsai, 2002).
The researcher found that twenty one science teachers (57%) had traditional beliefs
about teaching science, learning science and nature of science. Also, most teachers’
(60%) beliefs about teaching, learning and science were congruous. Therefore, these
congruent beliefs called as ‘nested epistemologies’ (Tsai, 2002). Based on the
results, Tsai (2002) claimed that nested epistemologies had an effect on teachers’
perceptions of the implementation of science in the classrooms. In another study,
Chan (2004) examined the relationship between Hong Kong preservice teachers’
(N=385) epistemological beliefs and their teaching and learning conceptions. In the
analysis, Canonical Correlation showed that preservice teachers with low scores on
epistemological beliefs subscales including Innate/Fixed Ability, Authority/Expert
Knowledge and Certainty Knowledge would be potentially to have low scores for the
Traditional Conception. Based on this analysis, the researcher concluded that teacher
education students who have constructivist conceptions believe that knowledge is
tentative and that one’s ability is not innate. On the other hand, teacher education
students who have traditional conceptions believe that knowledge is certain. In a
separate study, Chan and Elliott (2004) conducted a study to give a detailed picture
about the empirical research on the relationships between epistemological beliefs and
teachers’ conceptions about teaching and learning. Their study revealed that there
was a positive relation among prospective teachers’ traditional conceptions and
innate/fixed ability beliefs (r=.395), authority/expert knowledge beliefs (r=.402), and
certainty knowledge beliefs (r=.311). However, there was a negative relation among
prospective teachers’ constructivist conceptions and learning/effort process (r= -
.392). Similarly, in Turkey, Aypay (2011) conducted a study about the relationships
among the teaching-learning conceptions and epistemological beliefs of student
teachers. The results of the study showed that the Turkish student teachers were
12
strongly preferred constructivist conception (M=4.1) than to the traditional
conception (M=2.7) in teaching and learning. According to Aypay, possible reason of
this outcome was the recent reform in the curriculum and teaching-learning activities
based on constructivism in the Turkish Education System. It was also found that
teaching and learning conceptions differed based on the gender. The mean scores of
female student teachers with the constructivist conception (M=4.23) was
significantly higher than that of males while the scores of male student teachers with
the traditional conception (M=2.91) was significantly higher than that of females
(M=2.67). The findings on the relationship between epistemological beliefs and
conceptions on teaching and learning indicated that student teachers’ constructivist
conception increased while their beliefs about learning/effort process increased and
their beliefs about authority/expert knowledge decreased. On the other hand, while
student teachers’ beliefs about the certainty of knowledge increased, their scores on
the constructivist conception decreased. According to the researcher, findings of the
study revealed consistency with the constructivist approach.
On the other hand, some researchers focused on constructivism regarding teaching
and learning conceptions in their study. For instance, Plourde and Alawiye (2003)
investigated the correlation between preservice teachers’ beliefs about personal
knowledge of constructivism and personal application of constructivist teaching and
learning with a sample of 511 student teachers who completed their student teaching
experience. Data were collected through Student Attributes Form, which included
three questions about constructivism regarding preservice teachers’ knowledge and
application beliefs. The results showed that there was a strong correlation (r=.76)
between preservice teachers’ constructivist knowledge, which means the construction
of their own meaning associating what they already know and what they learn, and
application. In other words, when constructivist knowledge of preservice teachers
increased, they tended to believe that they are able to put constructivist principles
into practice. Similarly, Uzuntiryaki, Boz and Kirbulut (2010) examined eight
Turkish preservice chemistry teachers’ beliefs regarding constructivism and the
reflection of those beliefs in their teaching practice by means of semi-structured
interviews, observation notes and lesson plans. In data analysis process, interviews
13
were firstly transcribed and analyzed to find patterns about teachers’ beliefs about
constructivism, and researchers developed a category system. Then, preservice
chemistry teachers’ lesson plans were investigated and their practices were observed
to see how preservice chemistry teachers transformed their beliefs into practice. It
was found that most preservice teachers moderately or weakly adopt the conceptions
of constructivism. Also, the study showed that there was no clear-cut relationship
between beliefs and practice. For example, while preservice teachers with weak
conception of constructivism successfully integrated traditional beliefs into their
instructions, preservice teachers with strong or moderate conception of
constructivism had some difficulties implementing their beliefs into their instruction.
Therefore, they more likely to move from constructivist instruction to traditional
instruction (Uzuntiryaki et al., 2010). According to Uzuntiryaki et al. (2010), the
reasons behind the results might be lack of content knowledge, insufficient school
facilities and the difficulty of putting constructivist principles into practice.
Another study which focused on the effect of teaching and learning settings in
teaching approaches was conducted by Struyven, Dochy and Janssens (2010). The
sample of the study consisted of 852 Flemish freshmen student teachers who took
child development course. Data were collected by a pre-test/post-test experimental
design using Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Preservice teachers in experimental
group were instructed within student-activating learning environment setting whereas
preservice teachers in control group were instructed within lecture-based learning
environment setting. For the experimental group, the mean difference between the
post-test and pre-test showed that student teachers’ preference for student-centered
approach to teaching increased after the course. In other words, student teachers
within student-activating learning environment setting including problem-based
learning activities, teamwork, role-plays and case studies were more likely to choose
student-focused teaching approach. Moreover, student teachers in the control group
developed both student-focused and teacher-centered approach to teaching.
According to Struyven et al. (2010), it was not surprising since student teachers have
minimally outlined teaching approaches when they entered teacher education. During
their teacher education programmes, their teaching approaches gained more explicit
14
and definite form. Therefore, it was seen that both categories of teaching approaches
increased during the first year of teacher education (Struyven et al., 2010).
All in all, numerous studies showed the importance of teaching and learning
conceptions studies in educational research. Studies related with conceptions about
teaching and learning showed that teachers’ classroom behaviors and actions are
affected by their teaching and learning conceptions. Moreover, the relationship
between teachers’ images of themselves as a science teacher and their conceptions
about teaching and learning are shown in the literature. In the following section, the
use of mental models within the perspective of teaching and learning conceptions
were examined in detail.
2.1.1 The Use of Mental Models within the Perspective of Teaching and
Learning Conceptions
Image is literally defined as “an idea or mental representation, a conception with a
visual or physical flavour, an experiential meaning, a context or history, and a
metaphorical, generative potential” (Weber et al., 1996, p. 6). In 1983, Norman
stated that people constitute “mental models of themselves and of things with which
they are interacting” (p. 7) such as environment and the artifacts of technology. He
defined mental model as “…are what people really have in their heads and what
guides their use of things” (1983, p.12). To learn more about identity and mental
models, drawings have been used as markers and mirrors because drawings give a
chance to review deeply human sense-making unlike written or spoken texts do
(Weber et al., 1996). Also, they tell things that can not be expressed in words such as
the indescribable and the sub-conscious (Weber et al., 1996). Weber et al. (1996)
claimed that our past experiences like what we have seen, thought, imagined and
remembered reflect into our drawings automatically. Similarly, Calderhead and
Robson (1991) remarked that preservice teachers develop their teaching images
originated from their experiences during years of students such as an image of good
teaching derived from teachers they knew. These images affect their knowledge
transfer and practice as teachers. Therefore, several studies have focused on
15
preservice teachers’ drawings about science teaching and learning (Elmas et al.,
2011; Minogue, 2010; Thomas & Pedersen, 2003; Thomas et al., 2001; Ucar, 2012;
Yilmaz et al., 2007) and their relationship with different domains (Markic & Eilks,
2010); self-efficacy beliefs (El-Deghaidy, 2006; Finson, 2001; Finson et al., 1999);
and perceptions of students held about scientists (Finson, Pedersen & Thomas,
2006). For instance, in one of the studies Thomas et al. (2001) aimed to enlighten
the preservice elementary teachers’ unforgettable episodes within their conceptions
about how to teach elementary science using Draw-A-Science-Teacher-Test
Checklist (DASTT-C). This instrument provided elementary preservice teachers an
opportunity to “(a) picture themselves as elementary science teachers, (b) place
themselves along a teaching theory continuum, (c) consider the ways in which they
developed their own science teaching beliefs” (Thomas et al., 2001, p. 298). Using
checklist, the researchers can decide what attributes of an elementary science
teachers have: teacher-centered or student-centered. While students are passive
receivers in teacher-centered classrooms, teachers are at the centre of the learning
and instruction. However, students are active participants and at the centre of the
learning in student-centered classrooms. Furthermore, the nature of classroom is
open and encouraging where students do inquiry and exploration (Thomas et al.,
2001). As a result of the study, the researchers concluded that preservice teachers
develop elementary science teaching images from their experiences during years in
elementary schools. Also, it was found that the strong memories of preservice
teachers’ own science learning experiences during elementary, high school and
college science courses were correlated with their images. According to the
researchers, these results supported the general idea that preservice teachers might
have perceptions of themselves while teaching science that distinct from teachers’
who actually get in touch with children in a classroom environment. In a similar
study, Thomas and Pedersen (2003) studied on identification of preservice teachers’
images and perceptions bringing to science method courses. They claimed that
preservice teachers’ prior knowledge and experiences acts as filter while they take
action. The results showed that preservice teachers hold ideas and beliefs derived
before college. So, they opened a door to these questions for future studies “How,
then, can elementary science teacher preparation programs hold to the responsibility
16
of bringing new teachers into new, reformed understanding? How can preparation
programs be more directly involved in helping students reframe their thinking?” (p.
328). Apart from, Markic and Eilks (2010) examined first-year science education
students’ beliefs about teaching and learning conceptions in different domains of the
natural sciences (primary school science, secondary-level chemistry, physics and
biology). Data were collected from 266 first-year science education students from
four separate German universities by means of DASTT-C. The results revealed that
most of the biology and primary school first-year science students inclined to draw
classroom instruction which points out more student-centered beliefs. However,
chemistry and physics first-year science students inclined to draw classroom
instruction which points out teacher-centered beliefs. Moreover, t-tests analysis
revealed that first-year physics students strongly adopted teacher-centered beliefs
when compared to any other group and chemistry first-year science students strongly
adopted teacher-centered beliefs on average when compared to other groups
including biology and school science. According to Markic and Eilks (2010), one of
the possibility of this result might be that preference for a specific teaching style
changes with respect to specific discipline. For instance, while chemistry and physics
subjects are organized using teacher-centered orientation, biology and primary
school science subjects are taught in student-centered orientation (Markic & Eilks,
2010).
Another study which focused on the relationship between teachers’ teaching style (on
a continuum from didactic to constructivist) and their students’ perceptions about
science learning and scientists’ work was conducted by Finson, Pedersen and
Thomas (2006). The researchers hypothesized that teachers who adopted
constructivist teaching style were more potentially to have students whose
perceptions of scientists are less stereotypical, i.e. working scientist in their
laboratories or scientist with wearing white coat and lab glasses. Their sample
consisted of two different groups; 9 classroom science teachers at middle grade level
and 327 students (from 5 to 8th grade) in USA. Data collection procedure was
carried out a period of time between 12 and 13 weeks in which students have been
subjected to each of teachers’ science teaching. In the study, teachers’ teaching styles
17
and the students’ perceptions of scientists were assessed by means of DASTT-C and
Draw-a-Scientist-Test (DAST-C) respectively. Nonparametric correlational results
showed that there was no significant relationship between teachers’ teaching style
and their students’ perceptions about science learning and scientists’ work. As a
result, Finson et al. (2006) concluded that students perceptions about science
teaching and scientists’ work are resistant to change.
On the other hand, considering the fact that Turkish science and technology
curriculum in 2004 is based upon constructivism, Turkish science teachers should be
motivated to use teaching approaches such as constructivist-based and inquiry
method. To give a detailed picture about preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions
regarding science teaching in Turkey, Yılmaz et al. (2007) examined elementary
preservice teachers’ image of science teaching by means of DASTT-C. They found
that Turkish elementary preservice teachers’ science teaching style perception is 20%
student-centered, 41% teacher-centered and 39% between student-centered and
teacher-centered. According to the researchers, one of the possible reasons behind
this might be that science teacher educators may not sufficiently provide the
applicability of constructivism for instructional goals to their preservice elementary
teachers in science courses. Similarly, Elmas et al. (2011) explored preservice
chemistry teachers’ images of science teaching in their future classrooms and
association between instructional style and gender. They found that preservice
chemistry teachers’ science teaching style perception was 37.9% student-centered,
22.7% teacher-centered and 39.4% between student-centered and teacher-centered.
They concluded that preservice chemistry teachers adopt both student-centered and
teacher-centered instruction approaches. The researchers pointed out the reason
behind this as restructured 2004 education reform in the science curriculum, that
support the effectiveness of student-centered instructional pedagogies, and preservice
chemistry teachers’ teacher-centered school experiences as learners. There was also
significant association between instructional style and gender. Male preservice
chemistry teachers were found to be less willing to use student-centered instructional
approach than female preservice chemistry teachers. According to the researchers,
male could like to be authoritative figure accompanying to their social role in the
18
Turkish community. More recently, Ucar (2012) evaluated preservice science
teachers’ perspectives on science, scientists and science teaching by means of “Draw
a Scientist Test”, “Draw a Science Teacher Test” and “Students’ Views about
Science” tests. A cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 145
preservice elementary science teachers in their first, second, third and fourth years of
education. One-way ANOVA showed that while preservice teachers in their second
year were more likely to have stereotypical images of scientists, in the third and
fourth years of education, they were less likely to have stereotypical images of
scientists. The researcher came to conclusion that this was due to presence of the
teacher education programs designed with more science-related activities. Moreover,
preservice teachers’ DASTT-C scores varied significantly by years of education.
Preservice teachers’ teacher-centered teaching style turned into student-centered
teaching style throughout the years up to third year. According to Ucar (2012), the
results were not surprising because science method courses in teacher education
programs were framed to educate prospective teachers to adopt a constructivist
approach and practice student-centered teaching style. Besides, preservice teachers
might be affected from student-centered examplary teaching styles during practicum
hours at schools (Ucar, 2012). No significant correlations, however, were found
between DAST-C and DASTT-C scores of the preservice teachers. Ucar (2012)
concluded that perceptions about science and science teaching did not parallelly
develop.
To sum up, several studies showed that both preservice and inservice teachers’
conceptions about teaching and learning can be assessed through the use of DASTT-
C. Even so, it is known that conceptions about teaching and learning are related to
other variables such as learning approaches. In the following section, learning
approaches were examined in detail.
2.2 Learning Approaches
Learning approach, according to Biggs (1994), is defined as “… the ways in which
students go about their academic tasks, thereby affecting the nature of the learning
19
outcome” (p. 318). Historically, in 1976, Marton and Säljö, who are the pioneer of
the researches on learning approaches, wanted Swedish university students to read
substantial passages of prose. Students were interviewed about the meaning of the
passages and also about how they approach to read the passages. At the end, different
levels of processing information are categorized as; surface-level and deep-level
processing, later called surface and deep approaches to learning (Marton & Säljö,
1984). In their study, individuals adopted surface approach concentrates on the
surface features of text employed. On the contrary, those who seek the rudimentary
knowledge prefered a deep approach. Correspondingly, in 1987, Biggs provided a
general framework and summary of the characteristics of deep and surface
approaches to learning (see Table 2.1). Nevertheless, in the view of Saunders (1998),
learning orientation, or approach, is seen as an extent to which students adopt rote or
meaningful learning approaches while learning new concepts or ideas. According to
Novak and Gowin (1984), meaningful learners refer to individuals who associate
new knowledge to related concepts and their existing propositions. In contrast, rote
learners refer to individuals who get new knowledge by memorization and arbitrarily
integrate this new knowledge into their knowledge structures without interacting
with existing one (Novak & Gowin, 1984). To avoid confusion, the terms
‘meaningful approach’ and ‘rote approach’ were used for the dimensions of the
learning approaches throughout the present study.
Since 1970s, the way students approach to their learning task, or their learning
approaches have been focus of educational research. There are various researches in
the literature generally focused on the relationships between students’ approaches to
learning and different factors such as perceptions of learning environment (Ozkal,
Tekkaya, Cakiroglu, & Sungur, 2009), contextual and personological factors (Smith
& Miller, 2005; Zeegers, 2001), eliminating misconceptions (BouJaoude, 1990),
motivation and epistemological beliefs (Cavallo, Rozman, Walker, & Blickenstaff,
2003; Kizilgunes, Tekkaya, & Sungur, 2009), and academic achievement (Diseth &
Martinsen, 2003) For instance, in 1992, BouJaoude investigated the relationship
between the learning approaches of high school students, their prior knowledge and
the change in their chemical misunderstandings and the differences between the
20
responses of students of different learning approaches on the same test. The
researcher concluded that students who see themselves as rote learners performed
worse than meaningful learners on the misunderstandings posttest.
Table 2.1 Summary of The Characteristics of Deep and Surface Approaches to
Learning (Biggs, 1987, p. 15)
Dimensions of Learning Approaches
Deep Approach Surface Approach
Student is interested in the academic task and
derives enjoyment from carrying it out.
Student sees the task as a demand to be
met, a necessary imposition if some other
goal is to be reached (a qualification for
instance).
Student searches for the meaning inherent in
the task (if a prose passage, the intention of the
author).
Student sees the aspects or parts of the task
as discrete and unrelated either to each
other or to other tasks.
Student personalises the task, making it
meaningful to own experience and to the real
world.
Student is worried about the time the task
is taking.
Student integrates aspects or parts of task into
a whole (for instance, relates evidence to a
conclusion), sees relationships between this
whole and previous knowledge.
Student avoids personal or other meanings
the task may have.
Student tries to theorise about the task, forms
hypotheses.
Student relies on memorisation, attempting
to reproduce the surface aspects of the task
(the words used, for example, or a diagram
or mnemonic).
Another study which focused on the relationship between students’ approaches to
learning, contextual factors (e.g., teaching/learning activities, institutional values,
assessment procedures) and personological factors (e.g, student age, sex, prior
experiences) was conducted by Zeegers (2001). Researcher monitored the change in
learning approaches more than a three-year period and examined the relation
between age and sex of students and university entry mode on students’ learning
approaches with a sample of 200 commencing students who study in a science course
at an Australian university. Paired sample t-tests and repeated-measures analysis of
variance were used to evaluate the changes over time. The results showed that
Australian tertiary science students’ learning approaches was developed by the
tertiary experience. Zeegers (2001) concluded that students’ learning approaches is
21
active and open to change as a result of their learning experiences. Also, there was no
significant relationship between age and sex of students and university entry mode
on students’ learning approaches. Another evidence for the relation between
students’ approaches to learning and contextual factors and personological factors
was provided by the study of Smith and Miller (2005). In an attempt to provide
evidence on how assessment type (multiple-choice and essay type) may have an
effect on student learning and investigate whether discipline of study may have an
impact on student learning and relationship between gender and learning approaches,
Smith and Miller (2005) conducted a study with a sample of 248 Australian
university students, enrolled in economics, computing and psychology. According to
them, students more inclined to adopt surface approach in a multiple-choice type of
assessment. However, essay type of assessment can be seen to affect the students to
employ a deep approach to learning. After all, the results showed that there was no
significant impact of assessment type on how students approach their learning, and
female students were higher than male students in achieving strategy. There was also
significant impact of discipline on learning approaches. Business students get lower
scores on deep strategy and higher scores on surface strategy than psychology
students.
The study of Ozkal et al. (2009) was aimed to propose a conceptual model of
relationships between learning approach, constructivist learning environment
perceptions and epistemological beliefs. The data were obtained from eight grade
elemantary school students by means of Constructivist Learning Environment Survey
(CLES), Scientific Epistemological Beliefs (SEB) and Learning Approach
Questionnaire (LAQ). The resarchers found that learning approach of students were
predicted directly and indirectly through tentative beliefs by all constructivist
learning environment variables (Uncertainty, Shared Control, Personal Relevance,
Critical Voice and Student Negotiation). Students who hold tentative beliefs about
knowledge tended to learn in line with meaningful orientation. Also, students with
constructivist learning environment perceptions were more potentially to adopt
meaningful learning approaches while studying science. On the other hand,
Schommer (1990) claimed that learning approaches were affected by students’
22
epistemological beliefs. For instance, Kizilgunes et al. (2009) presented a model to
explain the relationship between sixth grade students’ epistemological beliefs
(source, certainty, development and justification), learning approach (meaningful and
rote learning), motivation (learning goal, self-efficacy and performance goal) and
achievement. The results of the path analysis indicated that students’ learning
approach was directly affected by their epistemological beliefs. Furthermore,
epistemological beliefs of students, indirectly, affect their learning approaches
through their direct influence on achievement motivation. In other words, when
students believed that knowledge is developing and handed down by authorities, they
tended to be self-efficacious in their learning and have higher levels of learning.
Moreover, it was found that students who assumed that knowledge is certain and
developing adopted meaningful-learning strategy. In contrast, students who assumed
that knowledge is handed down by authorities prefer to use rote-learning strategy.
Similarly, Ozkan (2008) investigated the interrelationship between epistemological
beliefs (certainty, source, justification, and development), learning approach
(meaningful learning and rote learning), self-regulated learning strategies and science
achievement with a sample of 1240 seventh grade students. The results of the
structural equation modeling indicated that major contributors of learning approaches
and science achievement were epistemological beliefs. It was also found that
students’ self-regulated learning strategies, which in turn affect their science
achievement were predicted by their adopted learning strategies. Correspondingly,
Cavallo et al. (2003) stated that it is necessary that college professors should attempt
to comprehend how students learn science and how learning skills and strategies
contribute for students’ understanding of the subject. Therefore, they investigated
learning approaches, motivational goals, epistemological beliefs and reasoning
abilities of college students regarding science concept understanding and course
achievement with a sample of sophomore and junior majors. For this purpose, the
learning approach questionnaire, the achievement motivation questionnaire, the
reasoning ability test and the science knowledge questionnaire were used to measure
the understanding of how students learn science. The findings showed that for
biology students, there was a significant correlation between meaningful learning and
learning goals (r=.46). In contrast, rote learning was positively correlated with
23
performance goals (r=.37). They found that most of the students, especially biology
students believed that the only way to learn science is rote learning. Regarding the
other related variables to learning approaches, Yenilmez (2006) explored the
predictive effects of eighth grade students’ meaningful learning orientation, prior
knowledge, reasoning ability and mode of instruction on their comprehension in the
concepts of photosynthesis and respiration in plants. Data collection was done
through a pre-test/post-test experimental design using two-tier multiple choice
diagnostic test, Test of Logical Thinking and Learning Approach Questionnaire.
Students in experimental group (N=117) were exposed to conceptual change
instruction while students in control group (N=116) were exposed to traditional
instructon. The pre-test scores of students were accepted as their prior knowledge.
The results of the study showed that in experimental group, students’ prior
knowledge was the best predictor of achievement, while in control group, students’
reasoning ability was the best predictor of achievement. Moreoever, in traditional
classrooms, it was found that students’ reasoning abilities and prior knowledge
significantly contributed to their comprehension in the concepts of photosynthesis
and respiration in plants. However, in conceptual change classrooms, it was found
that students’ reasoning abilities, prior knowledge, meaningful learning approach and
gender significantly contributed to their understanding the concepts.
In another study, Diseth and Martinsen (2003) examined the relationship between
approaches to learning (deep, strategic and surface), motives, cognitive style and
academic achievement. The data were obtained from 192 undergraduate psychology
students by means of ‘Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students’ to
measure the learning approaches; ‘Need for Cognition’ to determine the cognitive
styles; ‘Assimilator-explorer styles’ to characterize the students with assimilator style
and explorer style; and ‘Achievement Motivation Scales’ to determine the Academic
Achievements of the students. In the study, deep learning approach refers to the
intent to comprehend the meaning of learning material. However, surface learning
approach indicates to the intention to replicate the given learning material. On the
other hand, the intention of getting the best grades by adjusting their learning
orientation to the assessment demands refers to the strategic learning approach
24
(Diseth & Martinsen, 2003). The results of the study revelead that both surface
approach, strategic approach and cognitive styles were significantly related with
achievement. Moreover, it was found that the best predictors of academic
performance were surface and strategic approaches to learning. However, deep
approach did not predict achievement.
In the literature, there are also various researches focused on the relationships
between teachers’ approaches to learning and different factors such as
epistemological beliefs (Chan, 2003), approaches to teaching (Christensen et al.,
1995; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; Trigwell et al., 1999), preferences for learning
environment (Van Petegem, Donche & Vanhoof, 2005), personological factors
(Tural Dincer & Akdeniz, 2008), academic performance and satisfaction (Yilmaz &
Orhan, 2010) and nature of knowledge about learning (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-
Lewis, 2003). For instance, Chan (2003) examined the relation between
epistemological beliefs and study approaches with a sample comprising 292 Hong
Kong preservice teachers. The researcher found a positive correlation between
surface approach and innate/fixed ability (r=.21), authority/expert knowledge
(r=.19), and certainty knowledge (r=.18). Based on the results, the researcher
concluded that students with naive epistemological beliefs tended to adopt surface
approach.
The study of Tural Dincer and Akdeniz (2008) aimed to determine science student
teachers’ learning approaches and investigate the relationship between learning
approaches and other variables including class level and gender. The data were
collected from 108 student teachers by means of Revised Two-factor Study Process
Questionnaire. The results of the study revelead that science student teachers
generally adopt deep learning approaches. Regarding class level, it was found that
science student teachers’ preference for the use of deep approach to learning
decreased from the first year to third year; increased from the third year to fourth
year. Accordingly Tural Dincer and Akdeniz (2008), the reason behind the declining
use of deep approach might be the heavy workloads of student teachers which
discourage their positive attitudes toward science learning. The increase in the use of
25
deep approach might result from using process based educational approaches, in
which students construct their own knowledge through questioning, exploration and
using problem-solving skills with the guidance of their teacher, instead of knowledge
based educational approaches in the university. However, there was no relationship
between science student teachers’ learning approaches and their gender.
Regarding other contributor variables to learning approaches, Van Petegem et al.
(2005) investigated the relationship between the learning styles and choice of
learning environments of Flemish student teachers. The results indicated that student
teachers’ approaches to learning regarding the construction of knowledge were
predictors of their constructivist learning environment choice. In other words, student
teachers who experienced learning as a construction of their own meaning are likely
to prepare lessons in meaningful, strategic and discovery-oriented environment (Van
Petegem et al., 2005). Apart from that, to explore the relationship between the
learning approaches and learning environments, Yilmaz and Orhan (2010) examined
preservice English teachers’ achievement and satisfaction regarding their approaches
to learning in the blended learning environment. Blended learning environments refer
to learning environments in which web-based and face-to-face methods are
integrated (Yilmaz & Orhan, 2010). The results of the study revealed that the
academic scores of the preservice English teachers did not differ in respect to their
learning approaches. That is, preservice English teachers who adopted surface or
deep learning approaches had similar achievement level in blended learning
environment. Moreoever, it was found that deep learner preservice English teachers’
average satisfaction level in blended learning environment significantly higher than
surface learner preservice English teachers. According to the researchers, this was
not suprising result because blended learning environment requires to study from
web material and in which the responsibility of learning belongs to learner.
Therefore, deep learners got a chance to comprehend the learning material for
themselves (Yilmaz & Orhan, 2010).
In another study, Brownlee et al. (2003) examined the nature of student teachers’
knowledge about learning and changes of such knowledge through years. Twenty-
26
nine student teachers were interviewed at the begining (Time 1) and end (Time 2) of
a year-long graduate diploma in education. The definition of learning, learning
approaches, and descriptions of learning outcomes were revealed under two different
categories: transformative learning and reproductive learning. Transformative
learning defined as the construction of personal meaning and understanding with the
transformation of knowledge from the learners’ prior knowledge (Brownlee et al.,
2003). In contrast, reproductive learning refers to the comprehending in which
learning was a replication process rather than transforming process of knowledge
(Brownlee et al., 2003). The researchers found that at both time phases, most student
teachers believed that learning should be meaningful and so, they adopted to use
transformative learning approaches. However, if the task to be learnt was
uninteresting or focused on examination-based assessment, students teachers were
more likely to adopt reproductive learning approaches suggesting that their choice of
learning strategies differed based on the specific learning situation. Moreover, it was
revealed in the study that there were no changes in student teachers’ knowledge
about learning over the year.
In 1993, Gow and Kember stated that teachers’ conceptions of teaching had a
considerable impact on their students’ learning approaches at the departmental level.
The researchers reported that students in departments, with high scores on learning
facilitation, were more likely to adopt deep approach to learning. In contrast, students
in departments with a greater tendency towards knowledge transmission were more
potentially to adopt surface approach to learning (Gow & Kember, 1993).
Correspondingly, Trigwell et al. (1999) examined the association between teachers’
teaching approaches and their students’ learning approaches with a sample of 3956
science students and 46 science teachers in Australian universities. Their study
showed that while students whose teachers chose a student-centered approach to
teaching were more likely to choose a deep approach to learning and less likely to
choose a surface approach than students whose teachers chose a teacher-centered
approach to teaching. Unlike Trigwell et al.’s (1999) study, Christensen et al. (1995)
interviewed with 20 preservice primary teachers to examine their approaches to
learning and their conceptions of teaching. They claimed that approaches to learning
27
and conceptions of teaching were inseparably linked such that one evolved from the
other. In other words, conceptions of teaching are imbedded within some teachers’
approaches to learning based on their own experiences as students (Christensen et al.,
1995). Their results showed that surface learners were more likely to see teaching as
a transmission of information. On the contrary, deep learners were more likely to see
teaching as facilitation of learning and thinking (Christensen et al., 1995).
To be brief, the related studies reviewed have mainly focused on the relationships
between students’ approaches to learning and different variables such as perceptions
of learning environment, contextual and personological factors and motivation and
epistemological beliefs (Cavallo et al., 2003; Kizilgunes et al., 2008; Ozkal et al.,
2009; Smith & Miller, 2005; Zeegers, 2001). As well as, the relationships between
teachers’ teaching approaches, their conceptions of teaching, and their teaching
environment perceptions were disclosed. Although aforementioned literature so far
indicated that conceptions about teaching and learning are related to learning
approaches, another line of research concentrated on the relationship between
conceptions about teaching and learning and self-efficacy beliefs. In the following
section, self-efficacy beliefs were examined in detail.
2.3 Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Self-efficacy was literally defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to produce given attainment” (Bandura, 1997,
p.3). In 1977, Bandura hypothesized that “expectations of personal efficacy
determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be
expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive
experiences” (p. 191). For this purpose, he offered two-component model of personal
efficacy expectations; outcome expectancy and efficacy expectancy (see Figure 2.1).
An estimation of a person about a behavior that lead to certain outcomes was called
as outcome expectancy (Bandura, 1977). Efficacy expectancy was the belief that one
can efficiently perform the behavior necessary to produce the outcomes (Bandura,
1977). There is difference between outcome and efficacy expectancy, shown in the
diagrammatic representation below, since “individuals can believe that a particular
28
course of action will produce certain outcomes, but if they entertain serious doubts
about whether they can perform the necessary activities such information does not
influence their behavior” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193).
Figure 2.1 Diagrammatic representation of the difference between efficacy
expectations and outcome expectations. Adapted from “Self-efficacy: Toward a
unifying theory of behavioral change,” by A. Bandura, 1977, Psychological
Review,84(2), p. 193. Copyright 2013 by the American Psychological Association.
Moreover, Bandura (1977) pointed out that personal efficacy expectations were
arised from four information principal sources: performance accomplishment (later
called mastery experience, Bandura, 1997), vicarious experience, verbal persuasion
(later called social persuasion, Bandura, 1997) and physiological states. The most
powerful one is performance accomplishments because this source depends on
personal mastery experiences and once established, enhanced self-efficacy is inclined
to generalize to other situation, vice versa. In other words, mastery expectations is
increased by successes, however, decreased by repeated failures. The less dependable
information source about one’s abilities is vicarious experience. The widely used one
is verbal persuasion due to its ease and ready availability. That is, if a person is
socially persuaded, s/he is likely to initiate task and put greater effort. Emotional
arousals can influence perceived self-efficacy in dealing with threatening situations
because people have confidence in their physiological states in an exposure to stress
and judging their anxiety (Bandura, 1977).
Subsequently, teacher efficacy has come into notice as an important issue in teacher
education. Based on the Bandura’s self-efficacy definition, teacher efficacy was
defined as “…a motivational construct, proposes that the level of efficacy affects the
amount of effort a teacher will expend in a teaching situation and the persistance a
Person Behavior Outcome
Efficacy
Expectations
Outcome
Expectations
29
teacher will show in face of obstacles” (Gibson & Dembo, 1984, p. 213), or as “a
teacher’s judgement of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of
student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or
unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p. 783). In 2001,
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy suggested an integrated model. In this model,
teachers’ efficacy judgments are related to analysis of the teaching task and its
context, and assessment of self-perceptions of teaching competence. Vicarious
experiences, mastery experiences, emotional arousal and social persuasion contribute
both the analysis of them. Moreover, the model implies that the higher teacher
efficacy, the better teachers’ performance and which in turn the higher teacher
efficacy, vice versa.
Numerous studies showed that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs have been linked to
other variables such as beliefs about classroom management (Savran-Gencer &
Cakiroglu, 2007; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990), epistemological beliefs and
epistemological world view (Yilmaz-Tuzun & Topcu, 2007), conceptions about
teaching and learning (Czerniak, 1990; Eren, 2009; Gurbuztuk & Sad, 2009; Nie,
Tan, Liau, Lau & Chua, 2012), attitudes toward implementing new instructional
practices (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997), success in science learning (Bleicher & Lingren,
2005) and understanding of science concepts (Tekkaya, Cakiroglu & Ozkan, 2004).
Moreover, research on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs gave decisive information
regarding the comparison of teachers’ teaching self-efficacy beliefs in different
countries (Cakiroglu, 2008; Cakiroglu, Cakiroglu, & Boone, 2005), the comparison
of teaching self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007), and the changes in teacher efficacy during the early
years of teaching (Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). For example, Woolfolk Hoy (2000)
compared and assessed the teaching efficacy of prospective and novice teachers at
the beginning of their preparation program (Phase 1), at the end of student teaching
program (Phase 2) and after their first year of employement as a teacher (Phase 3)
through longitudinal study. T-test for paired samples revealed that there was a
significant increase in teaching efficacy from the beginning of their preparation
program to the end of student teaching program. However, the changes from the end
30
of student teaching program to the end of their first year of employement as a teacher
represented significant decreases in teaching efficacy. Woolfolk Hoy (2000)
concluded that during their student teaching program, prospective teachers had
buffering such as a year-long internship experience in the classroom not in their own
actual class as an employed teacher have. Therefore, there was a decrease in efficacy
when this buffering was drawn back.
In another study, Savran-Gencer and Cakiroglu (2007) explored preservice science
teachers’ (N=584) classroom management and their efficacy beliefs in science
teaching by means of Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (STEBI-B) and
the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control (ABCC) inventory. The results
showed that preservice teachers had generally positive sense of science teaching
efficacy beliefs. Moreover, pearson product-moment correlation analysis revealed
that instructional management subscale of ABCC inventory was positively and
significantly correlated with both personal science teaching efficacy (r=.143, p<.01)
and science teaching outcome expectancy (r=.135, p<.01). That is, preservice
teachers, who believed in ability their teaching science and their students to learn
science, were more likely to put controlling on instructional management (Savran-
Gencer & Cakiroglu, 2007). On the other hand, people management subscale of
ABCC inventory was negatively and significantly correlated with both personal
science teaching efficacy (r= -.339, p<.01) and science teaching outcome expectancy
(r= -.299, p<.01). In other words, preservice teachers who believed their ability in
teaching science and their students to learn science were less likely to put controlling
on people management (Savran-Gencer & Cakiroglu, 2007).
Furthermore, Bleicher and Lindgren (2005) investigated the relationships between
conceptual understanding, self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs as preservice
teachers learned science in a constructivist-oriented methods class with a sample of
49 preservice elementary teachers. Bleicher and Lindgren (2005) hypothesized that
“if preservice teacher have personal success learning science, they will then be more
confident to teach it” (p. 206). In their study, the 6-week summer course was offered
participating preservice teachers in hands-on activities, discussion and minds-on
31
activities. The researchers used a mixed-method design consisting of both
quantitative and qualitative research, for which preservice teachers kept reflective
journals during semester. Two-tailed paired-sample t-test and correlation analysis
were used to compare means of pre- and posttest administrations and associations
between conceptual understanding, self-efficacy and outcome expectancy variables.
Analysis showed that self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and conceptual
understanding of participants increased. Moreover, it was found that preconceptual
understanding and pretest self-efficacy as well as postconceptual understanding and
posttest self-efficacy were significantly correlated. According to the results of the
study, the researchers pointed out that if there is an effort to develop science
conceptual understanding for preservice elementary teachers, there will be positive
correlation between their success in learning and self-efficacy in science teaching.
Similarly, Turkish preservice science teachers’ understanding of science concepts
and their confidence in science teaching (N=299) were examined by Tekkaya et al.
(2004). Their findings showed that personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) scores
of preservice science teachers correlated significantly and with the number of science
courses completed in the university (r=.14, p<.05) and their conceptual
understanding (r=.12, p<.05). The researchers concluded that preservice science
teachers’ ability to teach science effectively is related to the number of science
courses completed and the level of conceptual understanding, positively.
The study of Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2007) aimed to investigate the relationship
between four hundred and twenty-nine preservice elementary science teachers’
(PSTs) epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views and self-efficacy
beliefs. Multiple regression analysis was used to explain the contribution of self-
efficacy beliefs (self-efficacy, outcome expectancy) and epistemological world view
(realist, contextualist, and relativist) on preservice science teachers’ epistemological
beliefs (simple knowledge, innate ability, omniscient authority and certain
knowledge). It was found that self-efficacy, outcome expectancy and epistemological
world view significantly and negatively contributed to innate ability factor scores.
That is, if PSTs accepted their students’ learning ability is not fixed at birth, they
could teach science effectively (Yilmaz-Tuzun & Topcu, 2007). For certain
32
knowledge factor scores, it was found that there was a significant negative
relationship between outcome expectancy and this factor scores suggesting that only
when PSTs accept the scientific knowledge they teach as unchanging, they believe in
affecting outcome expectancy. Also, it was found that only world view (realistic
world view) significantly and positively related to simple knowledge factor scores.
That is, PSTs prefered to use of student-centered teaching approaches (realistic world
view) when students get the scientific knowledge by memorization (simple
knowledge) (Yilmaz-Tuzun & Topcu, 2007). According to the researchers, PSTs in
their study might assume that their students as static learners, who learn science
effcetively by memorizing facts, when they teach scienctific concepts.
In another study, Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) explored the relationship between
teachers’ efficacy, experience and attitudes toward implementing new instructional
practices. Data were collected from 16 middle school teachers and 9 high school
teachers immediately after a four-day staff development programme on cooperative
learning method of Student Teams Achievement Divisons (STAD) as the form of
instructional innovation. The results revealed that teachers’ attitudes toward
implementing new instructional practices were negatively correlated with experience
and positively correlated with personal teaching efficacy beliefs. That is, teachers
with high sense of personal teaching efficacy tended to put instructional innovations
into practice (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997). The results also showed that more experienced
teachers were less likely to use STAD as the form of instructional innovation. One of
the possible reasons behind this might be corrosion of teachers’ enthusiasm for
adapting instructional innovation due to more years of experience in teaching (Ghaith
& Yaghi, 1997).
Based on the relational analysis of student teachers’ efficacy beliefs, achievement
goals and their conceptions about teaching and learning, Eren (2009) found that there
were two predictors of student teachers’ conceptions about teaching and learning,
which were their efficacy beliefs and achievement goals. Specifically, there was a
significant and positive relationship among student teachers’ constructivist
conception and their self-efficacy beliefs (r=.12, p<.05). On the other hand, there
33
was no significant correlation between student teachers’ traditional conception and
their self-efficacy beliefs. As a result of the study, Eren (2009) concluded that the
main characteristics of student teachers who adopted constructivist conception were
high self-efficacy beliefs, and high mastery-approach goal orientation.
In a study focused on the comparison of teachers’ teaching self-efficacy beliefs in
different countries, Cakiroglu et al. (2005) investigated preservice teachers’ self
efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching at a Turkish university and at a major
American university. There were 100 preservice elementary teachers in Turkish
sample and 79 preservice elementary teachers in American sample. The data were
collected by means of STEBI-B. The results revealed that personal science teaching
efficacy beliefs of USA preservice teachers were stronger than those of Turkish
preservice elementary teachers. However, there was no significant difference in
outcome expectancy beliefs of preservice elementary teachers in both countries.
To sum up, studies related with self-efficacy beliefs takes an important part in
teacher education researches. These studies showed that self-efficacy beliefs have a
powerful impact on teachers’ behaviors in science classrooms (Czerniak, 1990; Eren,
2009; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Gurbuztuk & Sad, 2009; Savran-Gencer & Cakiroglu,
2007).
2.4 Teachers’ Conceptions about Teaching and Learning, Learning Approaches
and Self-efficacy Beliefs
The National Science Education Standards in the US explained science learning as
“Emphasizing active science learning means shifting away from teachers presenting
information and covering science topics. The perceived need to include all the topics,
vocabulary, and information in the textbooks is in direct conflict with the central goal
of having students learn scientific knowledge with understanding” (National
Research Council, 1996, p. 20). However, Thomas et al. (2001) believed that there is
a powerful effect of traditional science learning experiences (in elementary school,
34
high school and college) on elementary teachers’ understanding of the nature of
science and the way in which science should be taught.
On the other hand, it was anticipated that improvement in the teaching practices and
self-confidence in the ability to manage teaching tasks appeared with high quality
learning in a preservice teacher education program (as cited in Gordon & Debus,
2001, p. 4; Ross, 1998; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Just
because of this, it was expected to result in enhancements to teaching self-efficacy
with an increased use of deep learning approaches (as cited in Gordon & Debus,
2001, p. 4; Ross, 1998; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). For
example, Gordon and Debus (2001) claimed that preservice teachers who adopt
surface approaches meet minimum requirements with minimum effort and repeat
material without analysis and focus towards rote memorization. However, when
difficulties arise, preservice teachers who follow surface approach couldn’t find
adequate solutions in these circumstances due to memorization. Thus, their teaching
efficacy would be threatened and decline at lower levels. On the contrary, preservice
teachers who adopt deep approaches to learning are able to resolve the problems with
problem-solving skills since this approach requires the understanding of material
being studied, as well as the active integration of new information with old one and
improves their problem-solving skills. In order to design successful contexts for
learning that may support preservice teachers to gradually leave surface approaches
and adopt deep approaches in an undergraduate teacher education program, Gordon
and Debus (2001) implemented contextual modifications in a preservice teacher
education program. Development in personal teaching efficacy was expected for
those preservice teachers who involved strongly in deep learning approaches. A
longitudinal, quasi-experimental design with repeated measures on non-equivalent
dependent variables was conducted with a sample of 197 preservice early childhood
teachers through three cohorts. Cohort 1, Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 acted as contrast,
treatment and comparison groups, respectively. Learning approaches, teaching
efficacy beliefs and causal attributions for learning outcomes were repeatedly
measured with the use of instruments including Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ;
Biggs, 1987b), the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES; Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and the
35
Achievement subscale of Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causality Scale
(MMCS; Lefcourt, 1981), respectively. The results showed that in treatment group,
the modifications to teaching methods, assessment processes and task requirements
stimulated changes in students’ approaches to learning by firstly decreasing their use
of surface approaches and then increasing the use of deep approaches. According to
the researchers, students learning approaches were malleable and so they were open
to the modification through contextual features. Moreover, the equivalent increase in
teaching efficacy was found in both treatment and contrast group.
Regarding the relationship between teaching and learning conceptions and self-
efficacy beliefs, the following studies provided evidence for that high-efficacious
teachers tend to use student-centered teaching approaches, while teachers with a low
sense of efficacy are more likely to use teacher-centered strategies (Czerniak, 1990).
For instance, Finson et al. (1999) claimed that self-efficacy is one of the reasons that
the way preservice teachers view themselves and their roles in a teaching context.
Teachers with low self-efficacy tended to teach in an authoritative way and with
teacher-centered thought. In contrast, when teachers have high self-efficacy, their
teaching is inclined to be characterized by more student-centered thought, the use of
more inquiry approaches and the beliefs that they can help their students to succeed
and were more knowledgeable of their students’ developmental levels (Finson et al.,
1999). The researchers found that teachers with high self-efficacy more likely to
include expected happy or smiling looks, outdoor environments used for teaching,
and group work activities in their drawings. According to the researchers, this result
supported notion that teachers’ beliefs in their capability to teach. Moreover, when
teachers have high outcome expectancy, they more likely relinquished some of their
own control of the classroom since they trust their students can learn. In contrast,
teachers with low self-efficacy tended to exclude students, and be centered indoors in
their drawings. In the view of the researchers, all of these results strengthened the
notion that high self-efficacious teachers believe in their own ability to teach and
apply teaching strategies giving students opportunities to have more variability in
their classroom behavior. Based on this, Finson et al. (1999) hypothesized that
preservice teachers with less stereotypical in their science teaching perceptions will
36
develop high self-efficacy level. In other words, preservice teachers with low
DASTT-C scores will see their teaching less stereotypical and should have higher
PSTE (personal science teaching efficacy) scores on STEBI-B. In a separate study,
Finson (2001) explored the possible relationship between preservice teachers’ self-
efficacy and perceptions of self as a science teacher. The researcher hypothesized
that preservice teachers whose perceptions of science teaching indicates teachers as
facilitators and students as active participants will more likely to have high sense of
self-efficacy. In this instance, pretest and posttest data generated from both DASTT-
C and STEBI-B instruments for a single elementary science methods class were
compared. In addition, preservice teachers wrote brief narrative descriptions of their
drawings. The results indicated that preservice teachers’ drawings and narratives
become less stereotypical from pretesting to post testing suggesting that their
drawings include outdoor learning environments, hands-on activities done with
students by assistance of their teacher. Also, it was found that preservice teachers’
outcome expectancy and personal science teaching efficacy scores increased between
pretesting and post testing. Pretest scores tended to support the hypothesis.
Correspondingly, El-Deghaidy (2006) conducted a study to investigate the possible
relationship between preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and self-image of themselves
as a science teacher and identify these two variables. Drawings of preservice teachers
showed that they entered science class with pre-existing images of themselves as a
science teacher in favor of ‘teacher-centeredness’ images. Also, STEBI-B results
indicated that there is an increase in preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs after
enrolling in science teaching methods course, underpinned by a constructivist
approach to teaching and learning. The results of both drawing scores and self-
efficacy scores suggested that there is a moderate correlation between preservice
teachers’ perceptions of themselves as science teachers and their self-efficacy beliefs.
In the same manner, Gurbuzturk and Sad (2009) investigated the relationships
between preservice teachers’ traditional vs. constructivist educational beliefs and
self-efficacy beliefs and found that as preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about
student engagement to the lesson increased, their constructivist teacher belief
increased. On the other hand, as preservice teachers’ general self-efficacy beliefs and
self-efficacy beliefs about classroom management and using instructional strategies
37
increased, their traditional teacher beliefs increased (Gurbuzturk & Sad, 2009).
Furthermore, Nie, Tan, Liau, Lau and Chua (2012) claimed that the adoption of more
student-centered constructivist instruction is seen as a challenge for teachers if they
have been using more traditional approaches. They found that there was a stronger
correlation between teacher efficacy and student-centered constructivist instruction
than the correlation between teacher efficacy and teacher-centered didactic
instruction. Therefore, the researchers assumed that teacher efficacy may have major
function when they encountered with challenging tasks in classroom teaching (e.g.
instructional innovation which requires adoption of constructivist instruction).
In the lights of the information given above, the majority of previous studies
concentrated on the relation between teachers’ images about themselves as science
teachers and their science teaching efficacy; or the relation between preservice
teachers’ teaching and learning conceptions and their students’ approaches to
learning. However, there is no research investigating the relationship among
preservice science teachers’ learning approaches, their science teaching self-efficacy
beliefs and their conceptions about teaching and learning, simultaneously. So, current
study attempted to extend the related literature and provide more detailed picture on
these variables.
38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter aims to provide brief information about research design, sampling,
instruments, applied data collection procedure, and statistical techniques utilized in
the study.
3.1 Research Design
Correlational research design was adopted in the current study. Correlational
research refers to the determination of relationship among two or more variables
without influencing them (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). In this study, relationship
between preservice science teachers’ learning approaches, self-efficacy beliefs and
conceptions about teaching and learning were examined by canonical correlational
analysis. Moreover, both of the quantitative and qualitative approaches were used in
the current study. One of the instruments of the research, DASTT-C including open-
ended question, permitted qualitative approach. Three out of four instruments of the
study (TLCQ, LAQ and STEBI-B), which consists of ‘likert scale’ type of questions,
lend themselves to quantitative approach.
3.2 Sample
The target population of the study was all senior preservice science teachers in
Ankara. The accessible population was identified as all senior preservice science
teachers in the public universities of Ankara. There were about 340 fourth year
preservice science teachers in the public universities of Ankara during the 2011/2012
school year. Convenient sampling method was used in the selection of the sample.
The study was able to be applied to only 208 senior preservice science teachers. Of
the participants, 156 were girls and 52 were boys. Most of the preservice science
teachers were graduated from super high school. Besides, majority of the participants
39
want to work as teacher in the future when they graduated. Moreover, most of the
participants’ mothers were graduated from primary school and fathers were
graduated from high school. Table 3.1 gives detailed information related to
preservice science teachers’ gender, graduated high schools of participants, choice of
working as a teacher when they graduated, mother’s educational level, father’s
educational level.
Table 3.1 Background Characteristics of Preservice Science Teachers
N Frequency (%)
Gender
Female 156 75
Male 52 25
Graduated High Schools
Super High School 56 26.9
Anatolian High School 52 25.0
General High School 49 23.6
Anatolian Teacher Training High School 43 20.7
Science High School 4 1.9
Others 4 1.9
Choice of Working as a Teacher
Yes 180 86.5
No 25 12.0
Mother’s Educational Level
Primary School 118 56.7
Secondary School 26 12.5
High School 39 18.8
College 20 9.6
Graduated School - -
Illiterate 4 1.9
Father’s Educational Level
Primary School 44 21.2
Secondary School 33 15.9
High School 67 32.2
College 62 29.8
Graduated School 1 .5
Illiterate 1 .5
3.3 Instruments
Four questionnaires were utilized in the current study. These were Draw-A-Science-
Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C; Thomas et al., 2001), Teaching and Learning
40
Conceptions Questionnaire (TLCQ; Chan & Elliott, 2004), Science Teaching
Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B; Enochs & Riggs, 1990) and Learning
Approach Questionnaire (LAQ; Cavallo, 1996). In following sections, DASTT-C,
TLCQ, STEBI-B and LAQ were explained in details.
3.3.1 Draw-A-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C)
The Draw-A-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist originally developed by Thomas et al.
(2001). Preservice elementary teachers’ unforgettable episodes within their
conceptions about how to teach elementary science were expected to enlighten with
the instrument. DASTT-C instrument sheet consists of an illustration part and a
narrative data part in one page (see Appendix G). There is a square at the center of
the instrument sheet, in which participants are requested to make their drawing
regarding their conceptions about how to teach elementary science and response the
following questions: (1) “What is teacher doing?”, (2) “What are the students
doing?”. There are three different sections in DASTT-C score sheet: Teacher,
Students and Environment (see Appendix H). The “Teacher” section includes two
parts that center on the teacher’s activity and position. The “Student” section
includes two subsections that center on the student’s activity and position. The
“Environment” section is comprised of such elements as related desks arrangement,
placement of teacher desk, lab organization, teaching symbols, and science
knowledge symbols. According to the instrument’s developers, each item in each
section of the instrument arbitrarily indicates teacher-centered teaching elements and
classroom images. If there is a teacher-centered instructional element in a preservice
science teacher’s drawing, the rater simply signs that element on the checklist.
DASTT-C instrument’s total checklist scores may range from 0-13 (the higher score,
the more teacher-centered instruction). Table 3.2 gives the categorization of DASTT-
C scores of preservice science teachers according to points received from items in
DASTT-C score sheet (Elmas et al., 2011; Yılmaz et al., 2007).
41
Table 3.2 Categorization of DASTT-C scores of Preservice Science Teachers
Categorization Scores (points)
Student-centered instruction 0-4
Neither student-centered nor teacher-centered instruction 5-9
Teacher-centered instruction 10-13
3.3.2 Teaching and Learning Conceptions Questionnaire (TLCQ)
TLCQ, originally developed by Chan and Elliott (2004), was designed to examine
the conceptions about teaching and learning held by preservice teachers. The TLCQ
consists of 30 items, and it is comprised of two subscales: constructivist conception
including 12 items and traditional conception including 18 items. For each item,
preservice science teachers rated their degree of agreement on scale ranges from
strongly disagree to strongly agree (5=Strongly Agree and 1=Strongly Disagree).
Aypay (2011) translated and validated the instrument into Turkish (see Appendix D).
In Aypay’s (2011) study, translation was conducted by two Turkish experts and
translation into Turkish was compared by bilingual experts of the field. TLCQ was
also piloted with 341 student teachers and similar results were found for factor
analysis with Chan and Elliott’s. The reliability analysis of the instrument conducted
by Chan and Elliott (2004) reported as Cronbach Alphas equals to .84 for both
constructivist and traditional conception. Besides, Aypay (2011) found reliability as
Cronbach Alpha equals to .88 for constructivist conception and .83 for traditional
conception. In the current study, the Cronbach Alpha reliability was reported as .89
for the constructivist conception, and .86 for the traditional conception and .71 for
the overall instrument (see Table 3.3).
3.3.3 Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI-B)
STEBI-B, developed by Enochs and Riggs (1990), was designed to examine
preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy of teaching science. The STEBI-B
consists of 23 items. The STEBI-B is consisted of two subscales: the personal
science teaching efficacy beliefs (PSTE), indicating teachers’ confidence in their
capability to teach science, and the science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE),
42
indicating their beliefs about the effectiveness of their teaching on students’ learning.
PSTE and STOE consist of 13 and 10 items, respectively. Preservice teachers, who
get high scores on PSTE subscale, show more confidence in their own science
teaching efficacy. Similarly, preservice teachers, who get high scores on STOE
subscales, show greater expectancy related to the science teaching outcomes. For
each item students rated their degree of agreement on scale ranges from strongly
disagree to strongly agree (5=strongly agree – 1=strongly disagree). Possible scores
on the PSTE and STOE subscale range from 13 to 65 and 10 to 50, respectively. The
STEBI-B was first adapted and translated into Turkish by Tekkaya, Cakiroglu and
Ozkan (2004) (see Appendix F). Researchers reported Cronbach Alpha of PSTE was
.84; of STOE was .76. For the current study, the overall reliability analysis reported
Cronbach Alpha of PSTE was .88; of STOE was .66 (see Table 3.3).
Table 3.3 Aim, Subscales, Number of Items and Reliability of TLCQ, STEBI-B and
LAQ
Instrument Aim Subscales Number
of Items
Reliability
(α)
TLCQ Examine preservice
science teachers’
teaching and learning
conceptions
Constructivist
Conception
12 .89
Traditional
Conception
18 .86
STEBI-B Examine preservice
science teachers’
science teaching self-
efficacy beliefs
PSTE 13 .88
STOE 10 .66
LAQ Examine preservice
science teachers’
learning approaches
LAQ-M 11 .85
LAQ-R 11 .67
DASTT-C Examine preservice
science teachers’
science teaching
beliefs
Teacher -centered
Neither student-
centered nor teacher-
centered
Student-centered
43
3.3.4 The Learning Approach Questionnaire (LAQ)
LAQ was designed to measure learning approaches of students as meaningful or rote
(Cavallo, 1996; Cavallo et al., 2003). LAQ consists of 22 items and it is comprised of
two subscales: Meaningful Learning Approach Questionnaire (LAQ‐M) including 11
items and Rote Learning Approach Questionnaire (LAQ‐R) including 11 items.
Preservice science teachers, who get high scores on meaningful scale, show a high
meaningful learning approach. Likewise, Preservice science teachers, who get high
scores on rote scale, show a high rote learning approach. For each item preservice
science teachers rated their degree of agreement on scale ranges from strongly
disagree to strongly agree (4=strongly agree – 1=strongly disagree). Both LAQ‐M
and LAQ‐R scales have possible ranges of 11 – 44. The questionnaire was translated
and adapted into Turkish by Yenilmez (2006) (see Appendix E). Researcher reported
Cronbach Alpha of LAQ-M was .78; of LAQ-R was .62. In the current study, the
reliability analysis reported Cronbach Alpha of LAQ‐M was .85; of LAQ‐R was .67
(see Table 3.3).
3.4 Procedure
In this research study, the research problem was firstly defined and then keyword list
was formed the accordingly. Then, the related review of the literature was done in
detail. Previous studies in the literature related to the study were searched from
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Social Science Citation Index
(SSCI), Ebscohost, Science Direct, Internet (e.g., Google). The printed out of the
appropriate documents were received from METU library, and Internet. First, all of
the received documents were read and the results of the studies were compared.
After completing the literature review, research questions of the study was proposed.
The most appropriate measurement instruments for the purpose and sample of the
study were chosen based on detailed research. Then, the researcher decided on the
universities to be included in the study and got required permission from Ethical
Committee of universities for the administration of the measurement instruments (see
44
Appendix A). Three of public universities of Ankara that have elementary science
education department were selected.
Data collection procedure was conducted during the spring semester 2011-2012
academic year. The purpose of the study was explained to the subjects and consent
forms were distributed (See Appendix B). Four questionnaires of the research,
DASTT-C, TLCQ, STEBI-B and LAQ, were administered to the subjects who were
volunteer in classrooms environment. The data were collected by the researcher to
ensure the consistency of data collection procedure. The instrument application time
was lasted in 45 minutes.
3.5 Data Analysis
In the current study, the statistical analyses were done by using PASW Statistics 18.
To analyze the obtained data, both descriptive and inferential statistics were used.
Percentages, mean, range, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, skewness and
kurtosis were used as descriptive statistics. The standard deviation, range, mean
scores of STEBI-B, TLCQ and LAQ and paired-sample t-test were used to examine
preservice science teachers’ teaching and learning conceptions and learning
approaches. Moreover, to see what images preservice science teachers have of
themselves, percentage of categories along a continuum from student-centered to
teacher-centered in orientation in DASTT-C images was calculated. As an inferential
statistics, Canonical Correlation Analysis was used to investigate relationship
between TLCQ, LAQ, and STEBI-B. Also, before conducting canonical correlation
analysis, all assumptions of canonical correlation analysis were verified.
3.6 Assumptions and Limitations of the Research
3.6.1 Assumptions
1. Preservice science teachers participated in the study responded to the items of
four questionnaires sincerely.
45
2. DASTT-C, TLCQ, LAQ and STEBI-B were administered under standard
conditions.
3. The data were recorded and analyzed accurately.
3.6.2 Limitations
1. The study was limited to three public universities of Ankara, so results may
not be generalized to entire country.
2. The study was limited to 208 senior preservice science teachers.
3. Since the survey includes many items, it might be too long for the preservice
science teachers. As a result, this might cause to get unreliable answers from the
participants.
4. The study was limited by its reliance on self-reported questionnaires.
5. Preservice science teachers might reflect their ideal images of themselves in
their drawings instead of their real images of themselves as a science teacher.
6. Canonical correlation analysis, which does not establish a causal relationship,
was used in data analyses. Therefore, future research is needed to determine
whether there is a causal link between the variables of the current study.
3.7 Internal Validity of the Study
According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2006), subject characteristics threat defined as
“the selection of people for a study may result in the individuals (or groups) differing
from one another in unintended ways that are related to the variables to be studied.”
(p. 170). However, in the current study, no analysis conducted related with the
subject characteristics such as gender, and age (grade levels) so subject
characteristics was not considered as a threat to internal validity. Mortality also was
not considered as a threat to internal validity of this study since the present study was
not a longitudinal study. In addition, location would not be a threat to internal
validity in the present study since the reseracher administered the questionnaires to
all participants under similar conditions. Moreover, instrument decay could not be a
threat to internal validity of the current study since there were no changes in the
46
instrument during the study. The administration of the questionnaires was mostly
done by the researcher, so data collector characteristics and data collector bias threat
is minimized. Besides, testing could not be a threat to internal validity of the current
study since the questionnaires were administered to all participants only one time.
There also could not be history threat in the current study due to the fact that
unexpected events did not occur during the periods of data collection that might
affect the responses of subjects. Moreover, maturation could not be a threat to
internal validity of the present study because the current study was not a longitudinal
study and did not include factors regarding the passing of time. Furthermore,
regression could not be a threat to internal validity of the current study because there
was no intervention. Possibility of harm to the participants was not appeared to be a
problem for this study. The participants were given the guarantee that the study did
not give any physical and psychological harm or discomfort to them and they were
informed about the actual purposes of the study. Also, deception was not required.
All participants were assured that any data collected is held in confidence and names
of the schools and subjects are not used in any kind of publication. Before the data
entry, the researcher assigned a number to each of the questionnaire.
3.8 External Validity of the Study
External validity “refers to the extent that the results of a study can be generalized
from a sample to a population.” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006, p.108). The sample of the
currrent study were 208 preservice science teachers who were selected conveniently
from the population. Therefore, generalization of the current study was limited. The
generalizability of this study could be acceptable for the preservice science teachers
whose characteristics and backgrounds are similar to the sample of the current study.
47
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
In this chapter, the results of the analyses to answer the research questions of the
present study are presented. Therefore, this chapter is divided into three sections. In
the first section, descriptive statistics are presented regarding research questions.
Inferential statistics are presented regarding research questions in the second section.
In the end, there are summaries of findings of the study.
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
In descriptive statistics parts, percentages, mean, standard deviation values for the
variables of Draw-a-Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C), and Science
Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (STEBI-B) were presented.
4.1.1 Research Question 1
What images do preservice teachers have of themselves as science teachers?
In the present study, 208 preservice science teachers’ drawings regarding their
conceptions about how to teach elementary science were assessed using Draw-a-
Science-Teacher-Test Checklist (DASTT-C) and classified along a continuum from
student-centered to teacher-centered instruction. Two researchers found that 13
drawings out of 208 drawings were inappropriate to be scored due to inadequate
drawing and related narratives. Besides, ten participants did not draw anything.
Therefore, 23 drawings were removed from the analysis and 185 drawings were
assessed. In the present study, the two researchers seperately scored all of the
drawings. The interrater reliability for the raters was found to be r= .97 (p=.01)
indicating almost perfect agreement.
48
Descriptive statistics results showed that preservice science teachers’ total mean
score on DASTT-C was 5.46 that falls in the middle category--neither student-
centered nor teacher-centered and represents an instructional method including both
student-centered and teacher-centered instruction characteristics. Moreover, the
results of the DASTT-C showed that 42.7% of preservice science teachers who got
scores between 0-4 categorized as student-centered instruction regarding their
perspectives of science teaching conception. Similarly, seven percentage of
preservice science teachers who got scores between 10-13 categorized as teacher-
centered. Moreover, preservice science teachers (50.3%) who got scores between 5-9
categorized as neither student-centered nor teacher-centered instruction (see Figure
4.1). Examples of drawings were given in the next parts of this section.
Figure 4.1 Results of DASTT-C Categorization in Percentage
42,7 50,3
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentages
Categorization of DASTT-C Scores of Preservice Science Teachers
Student-centered (0-4 pts.)
Neither student-centered norteacher-centered (5-9 pts.)
Teacher-centered (10-13 pts.)
49
4.1.1.1 Analyzing the Categorization of DASTT-C Scores
Teacher-centered Drawings
In the teacher-centered images of the current study, teachers are demonstrating an
experiment. They are usually head of the class. In other words, teachers are the
leader of their classes. Moreover, teachers are often lecturing in front of the
blackboard while students seems watching/listening their teacher. Also, students are
seating on desks that are arranged in traditonal row. Furthermore, teacher desks are
placed in front of the class. These images fit with teacher-centered instruction led by
teacher who trasmits the knowledge and in which students receive information from
their teachers as a passive learners. Some examples of teacher-centered drawings of
preservice science teachers are shown in Figure 4.2.
50
Participant ID: 15
Draw a picture of yourself as a science teacher at work.
Figure 4.2 Teacher-centered DASTT Picture and Preservice Science Teachers’
Explanation
As shown in Figure 4.2, teacher is giving lecture in front of the blackboard and her
desk is placed in front of the class. In this figure, teacher is the transmitter of
knowledge from her minds to the minds of her students. Moreover, teacher is in
static position in the class instead of walking around and she appears to have
absolute authority. As understood from the narrative, students seems to
watching/listening their teacher. Moreover, students answer the questions sitting on
desks arranged in traditional row. All of these indications in the figure fit with the
teacher-centered instruction.
What is the teacher doing?
“Teacher is lecturing and asking questions to the students.”
What are the students doing?
“Students are listening and they want to answer the questions.”
51
Draw a picture of yourself as a science teacher at work.
Figure 4.2 (Continued) Teacher-centered DASTT Picture and Preservice Science
Teachers’ Explanation
As shown in Figure 4.2 (Continued), teacher is demonstrating an experiment, which
is conducted by himself, in front of the class. Again, his desk is placed in front of the
class and students’ desks are arranged in traditional row. In the figure above, it is
assume that teacher is transmitting knowledge about a topic. Once again, teacher is in
static position in the class instead of walking around. As understood from the
narrative, students are doing nothing except watching their teacher as a passive
learner. All of these indications in the figure fit with the teacher-centered instruction.
What is the teacher doing?
“Teacher is demonstrating an experiment about a topic.”
What are the students doing?
“Students are watching the demonstration of the experiment.”
Participant ID: 58
52
Middle Category Drawings --Neither Teacher-Centered nor Student-Centered—
In the middle-range-scored drawings, teachers’ desks are placed in front of the class
and they firstly introduce the topic to the students, usually in front of the blackboard.
This part includes the characteristics of teacher-centered instruction. Then, teachers
are leading and encouraging students to make experiment, and participate learning
process with inquiry. Students are mostly studying as a group assisting by the
teacher. They are also actively doing experiment and making research. There are not
traditionally arranged rows in the classroom, instead usually arranged in U-shaped.
Student-centered instruction’s characteristics are seen in this part. Therefore,
drawings including these kind of features labelled as middle category --neither
teacher-centered nor student-centered-- instruction since both the teacher-centered
techniques representing the transfer of knowledge and student-centered techniques
representing the active participation of the students on an experiment could be seen
in the drawings. Some examples of middle category drawings of preservice science
teachers are indicated in Figure 4.3.
53
Draw a picture of yourself as a science teacher at work.
Figure 4.3 Middle Category --Neither Teacher-centered nor Student-centered--
DASTT Picture and Preservice Science Teachers’ Explanation
As shown in the Figure 4.3, teacher, as a transmitter of knowledge, is firstly
introducing the basic concepts of a topic in front of the blackboard. At this part, she
is in static position instead of walking around and students are sitting on desks
arranged in traditional row. All of these indications in this part fit with the
characteristics of teacher-centered instruction. However, in the second part of the
figure (starts with the sentence “Using the method of…”), students are actively
participating the learning process to construct their own knowledge with assistance
of their teacher. They are also working as a group around circular arranged desks.
Student-centered instruction characteristics are seen in this part. Since both the
teacher-centered and student-centered instruction characteristics can be seen in the
drawings, these kind of drawings were labelled as middle category --neither teacher-
centered nor student-centered—instruction.
What is the teacher doing?
“After introducing the basic concepts, teacher is dividing students into
groups to construct the knowledge on their own using discussion method.”
What are the students doing?
“Students are actively participating the learning process to make their
knowledge permanent, being led by teacher.”
Participant ID: 93
54
Draw a picture of yourself as a science teacher at work.
Figure 4.3 (Continued) Middle Category --Neither Teacher-centered nor Student-
centered-- DASTT Picture and Preservice Science Teachers’ Explanation
As understood from the Figure 4.3 (Continued) and its narrative part, again, teacher,
is firstly introducing topic in front of the blackboard in a static position. He acts as a
transmitter of knowledge at the beginning of the lesson. Also, it is assumed that
students are listening their teacher as a passive learner at this part. Therefore, these
are indications of the characteristics of teacher-centered instruction. However, after
introducing the topic, teacher is acting as guide while his students are actively doing
an experiment. Now, students are active participants of the lesson. Moreover, desk
organization of the classroom is U-shaped, which fits with the student-centered
instruction characteristics. Since both the teacher-centered and student-centered
instruction characteristics could be seen in the drawings, these kind of drawings were
labelled as middle category --neither teacher-centered nor student-centered—
instruction.
What is the teacher doing?
“Teacher is giving information about purpose of the lesson. Then,
teacher is encouraging students to do experiment.”
What are the students doing?
“Students are actively doing an experiment assisting by the teacher.”
Participant ID: 141
55
Student-centered Drawings
Student-centered images, drawn by the preservice science teachers, indicate that the
role of teacher is guidance and not transmission of knowledge. Teachers usually walk
around the class (indicated by arrows), not stand in front of the blackboard. Morever,
teachers are doing activities, such as taking a field trip, observation, with children in
harmony. Besides, students are active participant of their learning process. In most
pictures, they work in groups to get knowledge on their own. Also, laboratory
equipment is mostly on students’ desk and used by students. Morever, a few student-
centered images include outdoor learning environment. These evidences indicate the
characteristics of student-centered instruction that teachers generally prefer
encouraging students to participate in learning process leading by students. Some
examples of student-centered drawings of preservice science teachers are indicated in
Figure 4.4.
56
Draw a picture of yourself as a science teacher at work.
Figure 4.4 Student-centered DASTT Picture and Preservice Science Teachers’
Explanation
As shown in the Figure 4.4, teacher acts as a guide to faciltate the learning of her
students. Also, there are serious of arrows around teacher to indicate her movement
among students groups formed with respect to their intelligence type. This indicates
that teacher utilizes from the Multiple Intelligence Theory (MIT) in her lesson. MIT
provides teachers an opportunity to reach more students trying to learn important
theories and concepts (Gardner, 1997). In a learning environment based on MIT, the
emphasis is on the stimulation of active and individual learning process (Hopper &
Hurry, 2000). As understood from the figure above, students are in the focus of the
learning process and actively doing experiment with assistance of their teacher.
Moreover, students’ desks are not traditionally organized. All of these evidences
indicate the characteristics of student-centered instruction in the drawing above.
What is the teacher doing?
“I [teacher] act as a guide. I divided students into groups with respect to their
intelligence type. I’m helping them to do different experiments about the same
topic.”
What are the students doing?
“Students are doing experiment.”
Participant ID: 99
57
Draw a picture of yourself as a science teacher at work.
Figure 4.4 (Continued) Student-centered DASTT Picture and Preservice Science
Teachers’ Explanation
Unlike other drawings, Figure 4.4 (continued) shown in above indicates an outdoor
learning environment, which categorized in the student-centered drawings (Thomas
et al., 2001). As understood from the figure, teacher took his students to a field trip to
see things that can not be offered in school settings while teaching living things. It
might be interpreted that during field trip, students get a chance to observe, touch,
and explore living things in their natural environment so that they can easily
construct their own scientific knowledge rather than directly receiving information
from their teacher. Since teaching occurs in an outdoor learning environment
following an exploratory learning approach which supports inquiry, these drawings
fit with the characteristics of student-centered instruction.
What is the teacher doing?
“Teacher is teaching living things in their natural environment to
students.”
What are the students doing?
“Students are exploring nature and living things.”
Participant ID: 134
58
To sum up, while in teacher-centered drawings, teachers appeared to be transmitter
of information as well as students to be passive receivers of information, shown in
the Figure 4.2; in student-centered drawings, teachers are considered as learning
facilitator as well as students as active participants, shown in the Figure 4.3.
Interestingly, unlike other drawing categories, there was a few student-centered
drawings including outdoor learning environment. Moreover, drawings including
both the teacher-centered instruction representing the transfer of knowledge and
student-centered instruction representing the active participation of the students on
an experiment labelled as middle category --neither teacher-centered nor student-
centered—instruction, as shown in Figure 4.4.
4.1.2 Research Question 2
What are the preservice science teachers’ efficacy beliefs regarding science
teaching?
Preservice science teachers’ responses to STEBI-B showed generally high sense of
personal teaching efficacy (M=3.98, SD=.51) and outcome expectancy (M=3.71,
SD=.41). These findings indicated that preservice science teachers were confident in
their ability to teach science and generally convinced about the efficacy of their
teaching on students’ learning. For example, as shown in Table 4.1, majority of
preservice science teachers showed confidence in their ability to teach science
effectively (86%) and indicated that they comprehend science concepts well enough
to be efficacious in science teaching (82%). Besides, preservice science teachers
(87%) indicated that they usually welcome their students’ questions during science
teaching. Moreover, most of the preservice science teachers (84%) thought that when
the students’ science grades get better, it is often due to the fact that their teacher
apply a more effective teaching approach. Eighty five percent of preservice science
teachers agreed that students’ science achievement is directly associated to their
teacher’s efficacy in science teaching. Preservice science teachers (91%) also
believed that good teaching overcome the deficiencies in backgrounds of students.
59
These results confirmed that preservice science teachers in the current study
generally have high sense of personal teaching efficacy and outcome expectancy.
Table 4.1 Distribution of Responses to STEBI-B Sample Items
Percentage*
Item SA A U D SD
PSTE
1. I will generally teach science
ineffectively.
.5 7.8 4.4 47.6 38.8
2. I understand science concepts well enough
to be effective in teaching science.
19.9 61.7 14.1 2.9 .5
3. I will continually find better ways to teach
sceince.
22.3 67.5 6.8 1.9 .5
4. I will not be very effective in monitoring
science experiments.
1.0 5.3 10.7 51.9 30.1
5. When teaching science, I usually welcome
students questions.
31.6 55.8 6.3 3.9 1.0
STOE
1. When the science grades of students
improve, it is often due to their teacher
having found a more effective teaching
approach.
19.9 63.6 11.2 2.9 1.5
2. Students’ achievement in science is
directly related to their teacher’s
effectiveness in science teaching.
15.5 69.4 11.7 2.4 -
3. The inadequecy of a student’s science
background can be overcome by good
teaching.
27.2 63.6 6.3 1.5 .5
4. The low science achievements of some
students can not generally be blamed on their
teachers.
1.9 12.6 19.4 52.4 12.6
5. The teacher is generally responsible for
the achievement of students in science.
2.9 53.9 23.8 17.5 1.0
*SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; U=Undecided; D=Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree.
4.2 Inferential Statistics
In this part, paired-sample t-test were used to examine preservice science teachers’
teaching and learning conceptions and learning approaches. Moreover, canonical
correlation was used to investigate relationship between preservice science teachers’
conceptions about teaching and learning, self-efficacy beliefs, and learning
approaches.
60
4.2.1 Research Question 3
What are the teaching and learning conceptions adopted by preservice science
teachers?
The mean score of constructivist conception was M=4.38 (SD=.42) and the mean
score of traditional conception was M=2.55 (SD=.55). To see whether there is a
statistically significant difference in the mean scores for traditional conception and
constructivist conception, a paired-sample t-test was conducted. As shown in Table
4.2, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean scores for
traditional conception (M=2.55, SD=.55) and constructivist conception (M=4.38,
SD=.42); t(205)=31.82, p=.00. The mean difference in preservice science teachers’
teaching and learning conceptions was 1.83 with a 95% confidence interval ranging
from 1.72 to 1.95. The eta squared statistic (.83) indicated large effect size.
Therefore, it can be said that the mean of constructivist conception scores was
significantly greater than the mean of traditional conception scores. In other words,
this finding indicated that preservice science teachers prefer constructivist conception
more than traditional conception.
Table 4.2 Results of the Paired-Sample t-test Regarding Constructivist Conception
and Traditional Conception Scores
Paired Differences
t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed) Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Constructivist Conception
Traditional Conception 1.83269 .82667 .05760 1.71913 1.94625 31.819 205 .000
Morever, as shown in Table 4.3, while majority of preservice science teachers (89%)
thought that learning means providing students opportunities to explore, express and
discuss their ideas, twenty five percent of preservice science teachers believed that
recalling what the teacher has taught means learning. Also, while most of the
preservice science teachers (84%) thought that teaching means to help students
construct their own knowledge, twenty one percent thought that teaching is to teach
accurate and complete knowledge to students.
61
Table 4.3 Distribution of Responses to TLCQ Sample Items
Percentage*
Item SA A U D SD
Traditional Conception
1. Teaching is to provide students with
accurate and complete knowledge rather than
encourage them to discover it.
6.3 15.0 12.6 55.3 10.7
2. Learning means remembering what the
teacher has taught.
4.4 20.9 15.0 45.6 13.6
3. The traditional method for teaching is best
because it covers more information.
2.4 6.8 10.2 48.5 31.6
4. Good teaching occurs when there is
mostly teacher talk in the classroom.
1.0 4.9 5.8 44.7 43.7
5. Teachers should have control over what
students do all the time.
10.7 36.4 28.2 17.5 6.8
Constructivist Conception
1. Learning means students have ample
opportunities to explore, discuss and express
their ideas.
43.7 45.1 6.8 3.9 .5
2. The focus of teaching is to help students
construct knowledge from their learning
experience instead of knowledge
communication.
33.5 50.0 8.3 6.8 1.0
3. In good classrooms there is a democratic
and free atmosphere which stimulates
students to think and interact.
56.8 37.9 4.4 1.0 -
4. Effective teaching encourages more
discussion and hands on activities for
students
48.5 45.6 4.4 1.5 -
5. Students should be given many
opportunities to express their ideas.
62.1 34.0 2.4 1.5 -
*SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; U=Undecided; D=Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree.
4.2.2 Research Question 4
What is the learning approach adopted by preservice science teachers?
To see whether there is a statistically significant difference in the mean scores for
LAQ-M and LAQ-R, a paired-sample t-test was conducted. As shown in Table 4.4,
there was a statistically significant difference between the mean scores for LAQ-M
(M=3.12, SD=.41) and for LAQ-R (M=2.36, SD=.36); t (205)= -17.56, p=.00. The
mean difference in preservice science teachers’ learning approaches was .77 with a
95% confidence interval ranging from -.86 to -.68. The eta squared statistic (.60)
62
indicated large effect size. Therefore, these results suggested that the mean of LAQ-
M scores was significantly greater than the mean of LAQ-R scores. In other words,
this finding indicates that preservice science teachers generally use meaningful
approaches to learning rather than rote approaches to learning.
Table 4.4 Results of the Paired-Sample t-test Regarding LAQ-M and LAQ-R
Scores
Paired Differences
t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed) Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Rote Learning Approach
Meaningful Learning
Approach
-.77050 .62973 .04388 -.85700 -.68399 -17.56 205 .000
Morever, as shown in Table 4.5, majority of preservice science teachers (97%) tried
to associate new knowledge with old one while studying a subject. However,
fourteen percent of preservice science teachers often read subjects without really
understanding.
63
Table 4.5 Distribution of Responses to LAQ Sample Items
Percentage*
Item SA A D SD
Rote Learning Approach
1. I find I have to concentrate on memorizing good deal
of what I have to learn.
5.8 43.7 39.3 10.7
2. Often I read things without having a chance to really
really understand them.
1.5 12.6 59.2 25.2
3. The best way for me to understand what technical
terms mean is to remember the textbook definition.
5.8 28.2 57.8 8.3
4. I learn things by rote 1.5 15.5 61.2 21.4
5. I find I tend to remember things best if I concentrate
on the order in which teacher presented them.
14.6 47.1 32.0 5.8
Meaningful Learning Approach
1. I try to relate new material, as I’m reading it, to what
I already know on that topic.
40.8 55.8 2.4 .5
2. I often find myself questioning things that I hear in
lectures or read in books.
19.5 57.3 20.4 1.5
3. I generally put a lot of effort into trying to understand
things which initially seem difficult.
15.0 63.1 19.4 1.5
4. While I am studying, I often think of real life
situations to which the material I’m learning would be
useful.
34.0 57.3 6.8 1.5
5. I go over important topics until I understand them
completely.
30.1 59.7 8.3 1.5
*SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; D=Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree.
4.2.3 Research Question 5
What is the relationship between preservice science teachers’ conceptions about
teaching and learning, self-efficacy beliefs, and learning approaches?
Canonical correlation was performed between a set of preservice science teachers’
conception about teaching and learning variables (SET 1) and a set of their self-
efficacy beliefs and learning approaches variables (SET 2). SET 1 included
constructivist conception and traditional conception, while SET 2 included
meaningful learning approach (LAQ-M), rote learning approach (LAQ-R), personal
science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE).
Before the conduction of Canonical Correlation Analysis, assumptions of analysis
which are sample size, normality and outliers, absence of multicollinearity, linearity
and homoscedasticy were checked.
64
Sample Size
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) claimed that a ratio of about 10/1 (the number of
subjects per variable) is enough for accurate interpretation of canonical correlation.
According to this explanation, ratio of 208/6 is sufficient for current study.
Therefore, sample size assumption was verified.
Normality and Outliers
Univariate and multivariate normalities were checked for the normality assumption.
By means of skewness and kurtosis values, univariate normality was verified for
each of the variables. The skewness and kurtosis values of the SET 1 and SET 2
variables were all in acceptable range being between -2 and +2 for a normal
distribution (see Table 4.6). Moreover, histograms seem to be normally distributed
for all variables (see Appendix I).
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of the SET 1 and SET 2 Variables
Mean Std.
Deviation Min. Max. Range Skewness Kurtosis
SET 1
Constructivist
Conception
4.38 .42 3.00 5.00 2.00 -.53 .08
Traditional
Conception
2.55 .55 1.28 4.06 2.78 .15 -.20
SET 2
PSTE 3.98 .51 2.54 5.00 2.46 -.41 .32
STOE 3.71 .41 2.20 4.70 2.50 -.09 .41
LAQ-M 3.12 .41 2.09 4.00 1.91 .08 -.19
LAQ-R 2.36 .36 1.27 3.36 2.09 -.10 .71
Multivariate normality indicates the normal distribution of all variables and all linear
combinations of variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Multivariate normality was
checked by calculating Mahalanobis Distance and comparing with the critical value
obtained from the chi-square table (Pallant, 2007). According to chi-square table, the
critical chi-square value was found to be 22.46. The maximum Mahalanobis Distance
of the sample was 24.067. There was only one person whose score exceeded the
65
critical value. Based on the one of the example in the Pallant’s book (2007, p. 280),
the researcher decided to left this person in the data file since there was one person
and their score is not too high. If there had been a lot of outlying cases, the researcher
might have considered removing the outlying case from the data (Pallant, 2007). To
conclude, normality and outliers assumption were verified.
Absence of Multicollinearity
When the variables in each set and across sets are highly correlated (r=.9 and above),
multicollinearity exists (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The correlations between SET1
and SET2 variables are shown in Table 4.7. Correlations coefficients between the
variables in each set and across sets are not higher than .7. Therefore,
multicollinearity assumption was verified.
Table 4.7 Correlation Between the SET 1 and SET 2 Variables
PSTE STOE LAQ-M LAQ-R Constructivist
Conception
Traditional
Conception
PSTE - STOE .324** - LAQ-M .435** .275** - LAQ-R -.420** -.088 -.353** - Constructivist
Conception .475** .389** .457** -333** -
Traditional
Conception -345** -.029 -.196** .452** -.438** -
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
Linearity and Homoscedasticity
To check linearity and homoscedasticity, the scatter plots were examined (see
Appendix J). Scatter plots generally showed that there was no serious violation of
linearity and homoscedasticity assumption for many pairs of SET 1 variables across
SET 2 variables. So, linearity and homoscedasticity assumptions were verified.
66
4.2.3.1 Canonical Correlation Analysis
The first canonical correlation was .60 (36% overlapping variance); the second was
.40 (16% overlapping variance). With all two canonical correlations included,
χ2(8)=124.87, p˂.05, and with the first canonical correlation removed, χ
2(3)=34.81,
p˂.05.
Data on the first two pairs of canonical variates were shown in Table 4.8.
Specifically, “correlations between the variables and the canonical variates,
standardized canonical variate coefficients, within-set variance accounted for by the
canonical (percent of variance), redundancies, and canonical correlations”
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 603).
Table 4.8 Correlations, Standardized Canonical Coefficients for the First and Second
Canonical Variates
First Canonical Variate Second Canonical Variate
Correlation Coefficient Correlation Coefficient
SET 1
Constructivist Conception .98 .87 .22 .70
Traditional Conception -.63 -.25 .78 1.08
Percent of Variance .67 .33
Redundancy .24 .05
SET 2
PSTE .83 .44 -.11 -.16
STOE .57 .31 .60 .60
LAQ-M .72 .33 .25 .43
LAQ-R -.66 -.34 .65 .79
Percent of Variance .49 .22
Redundancy .18 .03
Canonical Correlation .60 .40
Using a cutoff correlation of .30, the first pair of canonical variates indicated that
more constructivist conception (.98) and less traditional conception (-.63) were
associated with high sense of personal science teaching efficacy (.83), high sense of
science teaching outcome expectancy (.57), more meaningful learning approach
(.72), and less rote learning approach (-.66). That is, preservice science teachers who
have high sense of personal science teaching efficacy, high sense of science teaching
outcome expectancy and adopt more meaningful learning approach and less rote
67
learning approach were likely to prefer more constructivist conception and less
traditional conception. Besides, the percentage of variance values revealed that first
canonical variate pair extracts 67% of the variance from SET 1 and 49% of the
variance from SET 2. Redundancy values indicated that the first canonical variate
from SET 1 accounts for 18% of the variance in SET 2. Likewise, the first canonical
variate from SET 2 accounts for 24% of the variance in SET 1.
On the other hand, the second pair of canonical variates indicated that more
traditional conception (.78) were associated with high sense of science teaching
outcome expectancy (.60) and more rote learning approach (.65). That is, preservice
science teachers who have high sense of science teaching outcome expectancy and
adopt more rote learning approach were likely to prefer traditional conception.
Besides, the percentage of variance values revealed that second canonical variate pair
extracts 33% of the variance from SET 1 and 22% of the variance from SET 2.
Redundancy values indicated that the second canonical variate from SET 1 accounts
for 3% of the variance in SET 2. Likewise, the second canonical variate from SET 2
accounts for 5% of the variance in SET 1.
68
4.3 Summary of the Results
The results of the present study can be summarized as follows:
1. The results of the DASTT-C showed that preservice science teachers’
perspectives of science teaching conception is 42.7% student-centered, 7.0%
teacher-centered and 50.3% neither student-centered nor teacher-centered
representing an instructional method including both student-centered and
teacher-centered instruction characteristics.
2. Preservice science teachers’ total mean score on DASTT-C was 5.46 that falls
in the middle category--neither student-centered nor teacher-centered.
3. As understood from the mean scores of the TLCQ preservice science teachers
seemed to prefer constructivist conception (M=4.38, SD=.42) more than
traditional conception (M=2.55, SD=.55).
4. Preservice science teachers’ responses to STEBI-B showed generally high
levels of personal teaching efficacy (M=3.98, SD=.51) and outcome
expectancy (M=3.71, SD=.41).
5. The mean of meaningful learning scores (M=3.12, SD=.41) is higher than rote
learning (M=2.36, SD=.36) which means that preservice science teachers
generally use meaningful learning approaches rather than rote learning
approaches.
6. The first pair of canonical variates demonstrated that preservice science
teachers who have high sense of personal science teaching efficacy, high sense
of science teaching outcome expectancy and adopt more meaningful learning
approach and less rote learning approach were likely to prefer more
constructivist conception and less traditional conception. Moreover, the second
pair of canonical variates demonstrated that preservice science teachers who
have high sense of science teaching outcome expectancy and adopt more rote
learning approach were likely to prefer traditional conception.
69
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter includes the conclusion and discussion of the findings of the present
study, implications of the study and recommendations for future studies.
5.1 Conclusions and Discussions of the Results
The present study examined preservice science teachers’ images of themselves as a
science teacher, their teaching and learning conceptions, self-efficacy beliefs
regarding teaching science, and learning approaches. This study also interested in
investigating the possible relationships among preservice science teachers’
conceptions about teaching and learning, learning approaches and self-efficacy
beliefs.
The results of the current study revealed that preservice science teachers’ perspective
of teaching and learning conception as understood from their drawings on DASTT-C
was 42.7% student-centered, 50.3% neither student-centered nor teacher-centered
and 7.0% teacher-centered. In fact, preservice science teachers’ mean of total
DASTT-C scores was 5.46 that fell in the middle category--neither student or
teacher-centered teaching and learning conception. These results might imply that
preservice science teachers in this study might be still under the influence of their
past both elementary and high school learning experiences, which is based on
teacher-centered instruction. Moreover, preservice science teachers may be
discouraged from using student-centered instruction in real classroom context during
field experiences. For instance, preservice science teachers may encounter reality
shock of a real classroom teaching when they consider crowded class size,
insufficient equipments in classrooms, and lack of time for student-centered
instruction. This might led them to include teacher-centered instruction
characteristics in their drawings. However, preservice science teachers’ current
70
learning experiences in teacher education programs, which depends on student-
centered instruction and constructivist theory, might also have an effect on their
images of themselves as a science teacher. Therefore, there might be a conflict
between preservice science teachers’ past learning experiences and current learning
experiences. Thus, preservice science teachers might reflect the intermingling of both
the traditional and constructivist teaching and learning conceptions in their drawings
on DASTT-C. Apart from, given that most of the preservice science teachers
(50.3%) fell in neither student nor teacher-centered teaching and learning conception
category, it could be thought that there is still a necessity to lead preservice science
teachers to student-centered instruction with creating inquiry-based active learning
environments in education faculties that permit more critical thinking, discovery and
collaboration to get perspectives of teaching and learning in science education based
on student-centeredness. Besides, preservice science teachers might need much more
practice in method courses to learn how to apply student-centered instruction in
classroom settings. Nevertheless, seven percent teacher-centered teaching and
learning conception might be accepted as an indication that teacher education
programs were promising in favor of student-centeredness. In other words, programs
for science teacher preparation might become more influential and effective in favor
of student-centeredness in recent years. Correspondingly, the findings of the current
study were parallel to the studies conducted with preservice chemistry teachers
(Elmas et al., 2011) and preservice elementary teachers (Yılmaz et al., 2007). For
instance, Elmas et al. (2011) found that most of the preservice chemistry teachers
(39.4%) teaching style perception was between student-centered and teacher-
centered instruction. According to the researchers, the possible reason behind might
be restructured 2004 education reform, that support the effectiveness of student-
centered instructional pedagogies, and preservice chemistry teachers’ school
experiences as learners, which is based on teacher-centered instruction. Similarly, as
a results of their study, Yılmaz et al. (2007) found that most of the preservice
elementary teachers’ (39%) perception of teaching was between student-centered and
teacher-centered instruction. Consequently, the researchers argued that science
teacher educators may not sufficiently provide the applicability of constructivism for
instructional goals to preservice elementary teachers in science courses.
71
On the other hand, in the current study, preservice science teachers’ teaching and
learning conceptions were also measured with TLCQ, a self-reported instrument, in
addition to DASTT-C instrument. According to TLCQ, preservice science teachers’
conceptions about teaching and learning were examined in two categories: traditional
and constructivist conception. However, preservice science teachers’ conceptions
about teaching and learning obtained through DASTT-C instrument were examined
in three categories: teacher-centered which refers to traditional conception of TLCQ,
student-centered which refers to constructivist conception of TLCQ, and neither
student-centered nor teacher-centered. When the two different results from TLCQ
and DASTT-C were analyzed, it was seen that TLCQ yielded somewhat contradicted
results suggesting that participants in this study preferred to use constructivist
conception (M=4.38) in their teaching. Besides, it is necessary to note that traditional
conception mean value (M=2.55) was found quite low, as indicated in the results of
DASTT-C. In their self-reports, there might be some preservice science teachers who
wish to prefer ‘neither student-centered nor teacher-centered’ category related items.
However, they could not do that since there was no ‘neither student-centered nor
teacher-centered’ category related items in TLCQ. Therefore, it might be thought that
TLCQ has some limitations regarding its two distinct dimensions, as compared with
DASTT-C.
Moreover, in the current study, paired-sample t-test was used to examine preservice
science teachers’ teaching and learning conceptions obtained through TLCQ.
Results revealed that there was a significant difference between mean scores for
constructivist conception and traditional conception suggesting that preservice
science teachers adopt constructivist conception more than traditional conception. In
fact, while majority of preservice science teachers (84%) believed that teaching
means to help students construct their own knowledge, twenty one percent preservice
science teachers believed that the focus of teaching was to teach accurate and
complete knowledge to students. Correspondingly, these results were consistent with
the findings of Aypay’s (2011). For instance, Aypay (2011) found that Turkish
student teachers were strongly preferred constructivist conception to traditional
72
conception. According to Aypay (2011), teaching-learning activities in Turkish
Education System and science curriculum reform based on constructivism have
positively influenced student teachers’ beliefs regarding constructivist conception.
However, there was an inconsistency with the findings of Eren’s (2009). It was found
in Eren’s study (2009) that senior student teachers adopted traditional conceptions
rather than constructivist conceptions. According to Eren (2009), the reason might be
the teaching practice, in which student teachers experience a ‘reality shock’ (p.81)
while facing with the experienced teachers’ role demands and expectations. Reality
shock was defined as “the collapse of the missionary ideals formed during teacher
training by the harsh and rude reality of everyday classroom life” (Veenman,1984,
p.143). Apart from, there were also consistencies and inconsistencies between the
results of current study and studies conducted in abroad. For example, Cheng et al.’s
study (2009) indicated that student-teachers in Hong Kong strongly believed that the
best teaching strategy was the constructivist approach. According to the researchers,
this result might be due to the influential and effective impact of the presentation of
constructivism and critical thinking in all sectors of Hong Kong education. However,
Chan and Elliott (2004) found that student-teachers in Hong Kong did not
exclusively adopt one of the conception strongly. They claimed the one of the
reasons behind this as the impact of Hong Kong student-teachers’ past learning
experience based on traditional way of teaching and an exposure to new perspectives
in their teacher education program.
Regarding preservice science teachers’ learning approaches, paired-sample t-test
results indicated significant difference between mean scores for meaningful learning
approach and rote learning approach suggesting that preservice science teachers
generally try to learn new information relating to their pre-existing concepts rather
than rote memorization. As a matter of the fact that majority of preservice science
teachers (97%) believed that they learn by associating new knowledge with old one
while seventeen percent preservice science teachers learn by memorizing facts. This
finding was also parallel to study of Tural Dincer and Akdeniz (2008) and Chan
(2003). For instance, Tural Dincer and Akdeniz (2008) examined the learning
approaches of science student teachers and found that science student teachers
73
generally have deep learning approaches. According to these researchers, using
process based educational approaches, in which students construct their own
knowledge through questioning, exploration and using problem-solving skills with
the guidance of their teacher, instead of knowledge based educational approaches in
the university might be reason behind this conclusion. It was known that education
faculties in Turkey have adopted restructured teacher education programs based on
constructivist theory, multiple-intelligence theory and student-centered teaching
approaches, which center on the construction of knowledge, since 1998 (Yilmaz et
al., 2007). Therefore, it could be said that preservice science teachers in the current
study might generally adopt deep learning approach under the influence of these
reforms in teacher education programs, as argued by Tural Dincer and Akdeniz
(2008). Similarly, Chan (2003) found that Hong Kong teacher education students
tended to prefer deep and achieving-oriented learning approaches. According to
Chan (2003), this was due to Chinese culture, which may trigger the promotion of
deep learning.
In the present study, Canonical Correlation Analysis was used to analyze the possible
relationships among preservice science teachers’ conceptions about teaching and
learning, learning approaches and science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Results
revealed that the first canonical correlation was .60 (36% overlapping variance); the
second was .40 (16% overlapping variance). For this reason, the first canonical
correlation and its corresponding pair of canonical variates were used as a base in
order to explain the relationship between pairs of canonical variates since they had
more explanatory power than the second ones. Concerning preservice science
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in teaching science, it was seen that while
constructivist conception positively related to personal science teaching efficacy
beliefs and science teaching outcome expectancy beliefs, traditional conception
negatively related to personal science teaching efficacy beliefs and science teaching
outcome expectancy beliefs. That is, preservice science teachers who have greater
confidence in their ability to teach science and their beliefs about the effectivess of
their teaching on students’ learning were likely to prefer more constructivist
conception. In contrast, preservice science teachers who have less confidence in their
74
ability to teach science and beliefs about the effectivess of their teaching on students’
learning were likely to prefer more traditional conception. These results were not
suprising as well as the notion of self-efficacy beliefs theory were considered.
According to the theory, high self-efficacious teachers trust in their own ability to
teach and apply teaching strategies giving students opportunities to have more
variability in their classroom behaviors (Finson, 2001), such as engaging in group
work, doing hands-on activities. As a matter of the fact that most of the preservice
science teachers (82%) indicated a high confidence in their own capability to monitor
science experiments effectively as well as majority of them (89%) believed that the
focus of learning is to give students a chance to explore, express and discuss their
ideas. The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and conceptions about teaching
and learning was also supported in the studies of Eren (2009) and Finson et al.
(1999). For instance, Finson et al. (1999) found that low efficacious teachers tended
to teach in an authoritative way and with teacher-centered thought. In contrast, when
teachers have high self-efficacy, their teaching is inclined to be characterized by
more student-centered thought, the use of more inquiry approaches (Finson et al.,
1999) in which the teacher acts as a learning facilitator rather than knowledge
provider (Chang, 2005). In another study, Eren (2009) indicated that student teachers
with constructivist conception have high self-efficacy beliefs and high mastery-
approach goal orientation. However, Bıkmaz (2006) found no relationship between
preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their views about effective science
course regarding traditional conception and constructivist conception. According to
Bıkmaz (2006), it is reasonable to assume that even if one teacher has greater
confidence in their ability to teach science, s/he might adopt teacher-centered
instruction in teaching science. More research, however, is necessary to clarify the
role of self-efficacy beliefs on preservice science teachers’ teaching and learning
conceptions.
Concerning preservice science teachers’ learning approaches, Canonical Correlation
Analysis indicated that constructivist conception positively related to meaningful
learning approach and negatively related to rote learning approach. That is,
preservice science teachers who try to learn new knowledge relating to their pre-
75
existing concepts were likely to prefer more constructivist conception. On the other
hand, it was seen that traditional conception positively related to rote learning
approach and negatively related to meaningful learning approach. These mean that
preservice science teachers who learn new knowledge by rote memorization were
likely to prefer more traditional conception. These results were expected since
teachers’ beliefs about learning might be intertwined with their preferred way of
science teaching, as argued by Christensen et al. (1995). It is reasonable to assume
that if one teacher experienced learning as establishing relationship between new
knowledge and what s/he already know, s/he was more likely to teach in the same
way. Therefore, teacher might prefer to teach same as how they learnt in the past
(see, Thomas et al., 2001). For instance, if one teacher experienced science learning
as a construction of their own meaning, s/he was more likely to prepare lessons in
line with constructivist orientation. Moreover, preservice science teachers adopted
meaningful learning approach might believe that they understand science concepts
well enough to teach science effectively and so they might prefer constructivist
conception while teaching science since constructivist conception requires effective
science teaching involving the encouragement of students to discuss and participate
hands-on activities as well as teachers’ deep knowledge in science. As a matter of
the fact that the majority of preservice science teachers (82%) believed that they
comprehend science concepts well enough to be effective in teaching. The
relationship between learning approaches and teaching and learning conceptions was
also supported with findings of previous studies reported in the literature. For
instance, Christensen et al. (1995) argued that approaches to learning and
conceptions of teaching were inseparably linked such that one evolved from the
other. In other words, conceptions of teaching are imbedded within some teachers’
approaches to learning based on their own experiences as students. Their results
showed that surface learners were more likely to see teaching as a transmission of
information. On the contrary, deep learners were more likely to see teaching as
facilitation of thinking and learning (Christensen et al., 1995). Similarly, in their
study, Van Petegem et al. (2005) indicated that student teachers’ approaches to
learning regarding the construction of knowledge were predictors of their
constructivist learning environment choice. According to the results of the study,
76
student teachers’ who experienced learning as a construction of their own meaning
are likely to prepare lessons in meaningful, strategic and discovery-oriented
evironment. However, more research is necessary to clarify the role of learning
approaches on teaching and learning conceptions and draw conclusive findings.
To sum up, the results of the present study is generally similar with the findings in
the literature although there are some discrepancies for the results of current study
and previous studies. The results of the present study showed that preservice science
teachers adopt constructivist conception more than traditional conception as well as
meaningful learning approaches rather than rote learning approaches. Furthermore,
preservice science teachers’ responses to STEBI-B showed generally high levels of
personal teaching efficacy and outcome expectancy. Moreover, it was concluded that
preservice science teachers who have high sense of personal science teaching
efficacy beliefs and science teaching outcome expectancy beliefs; and try to relate
new knowledge to their pre-existing concepts rather than getting new knowledge by
rote memorization are likely to prefer more constructivist conception. On the other
hand, preservice science teachers who have low sense of personal science teaching
efficacy beliefs and science teaching outcome expectancy beliefs; and get new
knowledge by rote memorization rather than relating new knowledge to their pre-
existing concepts are likely to prefer more traditional conception.
5.2 Implications of the Study
The present study might be considered as an attempt to reveal senior preservice
science teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning, self-efficacy beliefs in science
teaching and learning approaches before graduation. When the results of the present
study are taken into consideration, implications can be drawn for teacher educators
and mentor teachers in the improvement of the quality of teacher education. To cause
desired changes within preservice science teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
learning conceptions, science teaching self-efficacy beliefs and learning approaches,
teacher educators can identify their those prior beliefs at the beginning of their
education program and design education programs accordingly. For instance, if it is
77
identified the undesired beliefs that preservice science teachers hold such as rote
learning, low sense of science teaching self-efficacy beliefs and teacher-centered
instruction, teacher educators may design a wide range of classroom experiences for
preservice science teachers such as hands-on activities helping them to make a
connection between scientific facts and their applications in daily life and
microteaching experiences through which they learn how to apply student-centered
instruction in classroom environment. These experiences may also help them to
become aware of their beliefs about self-efficacy in science teaching and learning
approaches, and conceptions about teaching and learning. Besides, teacher educators
may provide a constructivist learning environment allowing construction of
knowledge through exploration, questioning, experimentation, and active
participation as well as appropriate role models employing student-centered
instruction more often in their science education courses. Also, mentor teachers
might take the science teaching self-efficacy beliefs of preservice science teachers
into account when allocating their teaching duties not to face preservice science
teachers with unexpected failure in teaching at the beginning of their professional life
during field experience activities. Just as Poulou (2007) said “Successes raise
efficacy appraisals, whereas repeated failures lower them, especially if the failures
occur early in the course of events” (p. 193). Moreover, during field experiences,
more opportunities in real teaching situations should be given preservice science
teachers by mentors teachers since greater involvement with science teaching might
improve preservice science teachers’ instructional behaviors in the science
classrooms. Consequently, teacher educators and mentor teachers may also make use
of the relationship between learning approaches, self-efficacy beliefs and
conceptions about teaching and learning to cause desirable changes within preservice
science teachers.
5.3 Recommendations of the Study
In the present study, the relationships among preservice science teachers’
conceptions about teaching and learning, learning approaches and self-efficacy
beliefs were examined. However, there may be some suggestions for future research
78
to illuminate the results of the current study. Since the study was limited by its
reliance on self-reported data, further research through use of qualitative studies such
as interviews with preservice science teachers and comparison of observations during
their field experiences and microteaching experiences in the classroom, might be
conducted to examine their learning approaches, self-efficacy beliefs, and
conceptions about teaching and learning. Moreover, further research using qualitative
approach could be useful to detect underlying causes of the relationship among
variables of the current study. What is more, in the current study, data were collected
at a single point in time. So, longitudinal studies might be conducted to see changes
in learning approaches, self-efficacy beliefs, and conceptions about teaching and
learning of preservice science teachers through transition from being a student
teacher to professional teacher or to see whether the results of the current study
revealed the real beliefs of preservice science teachers due to the fact that the study
was limited by its reliance on self-reported data. Besides, further study can be
conducted in different geographical region to make generalization for Turkey. In
addition, cross-cultural studies might be performed to see differences between our
preservice science teachers’ learning approaches, self-efficacy beliefs, and
conceptions about teaching and learning and that of other countries’ preservice
science teachers’. Since the results of the current study will be base for future
studies, it is worthwhile to move on this line of research to extend related literature
and provide more detailed picture on these variables.
79
REFERENCES
Aypay, A. (2011). Öğretme ve öğrenme anlayışları ölçeği’nin Türkiye uyarlaması ve
epistemolojik inançlar ile öğretme ve öğrenme anlayışları arasındaki ilişkiler.
Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(1), 7-29.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Bıkmaz, F. (2006). Science teaching self-efficacy beliefs and views about effective
science courses. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 25, 34-44.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1994). Approaches to learning: Nature and measurement of.
International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed. Vol. 1 pp. 318-322).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice
science teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16,
205-225.
BouJaoude, S. B. (1990, April). The relationship between students’ learning
strategies and the change in their chemical misunderstandings during a high
school chemistry course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta.
Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2003). An investigation of student
teachers’ knowledge about their own learning. Higher Education, 45, 109-
125.
Cakiroglu, E. (2008). The teaching efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers in the
USA and Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(1), 33-44.
80
Cakiroglu, J., Cakiroglu, E., & Boone, W. J. (2005). Pre-service teacher self-efficacy
beliefs regarding science teaching: A comparison of pre-service teachers in
Turkey and the USA. Science Educator, 14(1), 31-40.
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early
conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1-8.
Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996) Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’
understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 33, 625-656.
Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2003). Learning,
reasoning, motivation and epistemological beliefs. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 33, 18-23.
Chan, K. W. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs
and approaches to learning. Research in Education, 69, 36-50.
Chan, K. W., & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology
and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20(8), 817-831.
Chan, K. W., Than, J., & Khoo, A. (2007). Preservice teachers’ conceptions about
teaching and learning: A closer look at Singapore cultural context. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 181-195.
Chang, W. (2005). Impact of constructivist teaching on students’ beliefs about
teaching and learning in introductory physics. Canadian Journal of Science,
Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(1), 95-109.
Cheng, M. M. H., Chan, K. W., Tang, S. Y. F., & Cheng, A. Y. N. (2009). Preservice
teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 319-322.
Christensen, C. A., Massey, D. R., Isaacs, P. J., & Synott, J. (1995). Beginning
teacher education: Students’ conceptions of teaching and approaches to
learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 20(1), 19-29.
81
Ciminelli, M. (2009). Learning to teach in a constructivist teacher education
environment. Retrieved from
http://jpacte.learningcentered.org/Articles/Fall2009/Ciminelli.pdf
Czerniak, C. M. (1990). A study of self-efficacy, anxiety and science knowledge in
preservice elementary teachers. Paper presented at the annunal meeting of the
National Association of Research in Science Teaching, in Atlanta, GA, April
8-11.
Diseth,A. & Øyvind, M. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives
as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-
207.
El-Deghaidy, H. (2006). An investigation of preservice teacher’s self-efficacy and
self-image as a science teacher in Egypt. Science Learning and Teaching,
7(2), 1-22.
Elmas, R., Demirdogen, B., & Geban, O. (2011). Preservice chemistry teachers’
images about science teaching in their future classrooms. H. U. Journal of
Education, 40, 164-175.
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science
teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School
Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 695-706.
Eren, A. (2009). Examining the teacher efficacy and achievement goals as predictors
of Turkish student teachers’ conceptions about teaching and learning.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), p. 69-87.
Eren, A. (2010). Consonance and dissonance between Turkish prospective teachers’
values and practises: Conceptions about teaching, learning, and assessment.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 27-48.
Finson, K. (2001). Investigating preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy relative
to self-image as a science teacher. Journal of elementary Science Education,
13(1), 31-42.
Finson, K., Riggs, I., & Jesunathadas, J. (1999). The relationship of science teaching
self efficacy and outcome expectancy to the draw-a-science-teacher-teaching
82
checklist. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Education of Teachers of Science, Austin, Texas.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in
education (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Gardner, H. (1997). An interview with Howard Gardner. Mindshift Connection:
Multiple Intelligences, Tuscon, Arizona: Zephyr Press.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy
and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 13, 451-458.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
Gordon C., & Debus R. (2001, April). Enhancing learning approaches in an
undergraduate teacher education program. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seatle.
Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to
student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-33.
Gurbuzturk, O., Duruhan, K., & Sad, S. N. (2009).Preservice teachers' previous
formal education experiences and visions about their future teaching.
Elementary Education Online, 8(3), 923-934.
Gurbuzturk, O., & Sad, S. N. (2009). Student teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
their sense of self-efficacy: A descriptive and comparative analysis. Inonu
University Journal of The Faculty of Education, 10(3), 201-226.
Hopper, B., & Hurry, P. (2000). Learning the MI way: The effects on students’
learning of using the theory of multiple intelligences. Pastoral Care in
Education, 18(4), 26-32.
Isikoglu, N., Basturk, R., & Karaca, F. (2009). Assessing in-service teachers’
instructional beliefs about student-centered education: A Turkish prospective.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 350-356.
83
Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. K.
Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education
(pp-1067-1104). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kember, D. (1997). A Reconceptualisation of the research into university academics'
conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
Kızılgüneş B. (2007). Predictive influence of students achievement motivation,
meaningful learning approach and epistemological beliefs on classification
concept achievement. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara
Kızılgüneş, B., Tekkaya, C. and Sungur, S., (2009). Modeling the Relationships
among Students’ Epistemological Beliefs, Motivation, Learning Approach
and Achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 243-255.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1981). Research with the locus of control construct. New York:
Academic Press.
Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2010). First-year science education student teachers’ beliefs
about student- and teacher-centeredness: Parallels and differences between
chemistry and other science teaching domains. Journal of Chemical
Education, 87(3), 335-339.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and
process I. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and
process II. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R.(1984). ‘Approaches to learning’, in Marton, F. Hounsell, D.
J. And Entwistle, N. J. (eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburg: Scottish
Academic Press, pp. 36-55.
Minogue, J. (2010). What is the teacher doing? What are the students doing? An
application of the draw-a-science-teacher-test. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 21, 767–781. doi:10.1007/s10972-009-9170-7.
84
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nie, Y., Tan, G. H., Liau, A., Lau, S., & Chua, B. L. (2012). The roles of teacher
efficacy in instructional innovation: Its predictive relations to constructivist
and didactic instruction. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 1-11.
doi: 10.1007/s10671-012-9128-y.
Norman, D. A., (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner, D., &
A. L. Stevens, (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Erlbaum Associates.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Sungur, S. (2009). A conceptual model of
relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions,
epistemological beliefs, and learning approaches. Learning and Individual
Differences, 19, 71-79.
Ozkan, S. (2008). Modeling elementary students’ science achievement: The
interrelationships among epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and
self-regulated learning strategies. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation).
Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Pajares, M. F., (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Plourde, L. A., & Alawiye, O. (2003). Constructivism and elementary preservice
science teacher preparation: Knowledge to application. College Student
Journal, 37(3), 334-342.
Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: Student teachers’
perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27, 191-218.
85
Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(4), 203-
220.
Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist
perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’
approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6),
673-680.
Ross, J. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy
(Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7, pp. 49–73). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching
and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 299-325.
Saunders, G. L. (1998). Relationships among epistemological beliefs,
implementation of instruction, and approaches to learning in college
chemistry. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma Graduate College,
Norman, Oklahoma).
Savran-Gencer, A., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2007). Turkish preservice science teachers’
efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching and their beliefs about classroom
management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 664–675.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.
Smith, S. N., & Miller, R. J. (2005). Learning approaches: Examination type,
discipline of study, and gender. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 43-53.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2010). ‘Teach as you preach’: The effects of
student-centered versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers’
approaches to teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 43-
64.
86
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson.
Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Ozkan, O. (2004). Turkish preservice science teachers’
understanding of science and their confidence in teaching it. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 30(1), 57-66.
Thomas, J. & Pedersen, J. E. (1998a). Draw-a-Science teacher: A visualization of
beliefs and self-efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Minneapolis, MN.
Thomas, J. A., & Pedersen, J. E. (2003). Reforming elementary science teacher
preparation: What about extant teaching beliefs? School Science and
Mathematics, 103(7), 319-330.
Thomas, J. A., Pedersen, J. E., & Finson, K. (2001). Validating the draw-a-science-
teacher-test checklist (DASTT-C): Exploring mental models and teacher
beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 295-310.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational
perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 275–284.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’
approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher
Education, 37, 57–70.
Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching,
learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771-
783.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of
self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
87
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Education Research, 68(2), 202–248.
Tural Dincer, G., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2008). Examining learning approaches of
science student teachers according to the class level and gender. US-China
Education Review, 5(12), 54-59.
Ucar, S. (2012). How do pre-service science teachers’ views on science, scientists,
and science teaching change over time in a science teacher training program?
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 255-266.
Uzuntiryaki, E., Boz, Y., & Kirbulut, D. (2010). Do pre-service chemistry teachers
reflect their beliefs about constructivism in their teaching practices? Research
in Science Education, 40, 403-424.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35,
673-695.
Van Petegem, P., Donche, V., & Vanhoof, J. (2005). Relating pre-service teachers’
approaches to learning and preferences for constructivist learning
environments. Learning Environments Research, 8, 309-332.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of
Education Research, 54, 143–178.
Watters, D. J., & Watters, J. J. (2007). Approaches to learning by students in the
biological sciences: Implications for teaching. International Journal of
Science, 29(1), 19-43.
Weber, S., Mitchell, C., & Nicholai, V. (1996). Drawing ourselves into teaching:
Studying the images that shape and distort teacher education. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 12(3), 303-313.
Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the
2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC:
Horizon Research, Inc.
88
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and
beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Yenilmez, A. (2006). Exploring relationship among students' prior knowledge,
meaningful learning orientation, reasoning. Unpublished Master Thesis,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Yilmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2010). Pre-service english teachers in blended learning
environment in respect to their learning approaches. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 157-164.
Yilmaz, H., Turkmen, H., Pedersen, J. E. & Cavas, P. H. (2007). Evaluation of
preservice teachers’ images of science teaching in Turkey. Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 8 (1), Article 2.
Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Topcu, M. S. (2007). Relationships among preservice science
teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self-
efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 65–85.
doi:10.1080/09500690601185113.
Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115-132.
89
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
PERMISSION OBTAINED FROM ETHICAL COMMITEE
90
91
92
93
APPENDIX B
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION FORM
Bu çalışma, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi İlköğretim Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi
Bölümünde yüksek lisans yapmakta olan Semra Saçıcı tarafından lisansüstü tezi
olarak yürütülen bir çalışmadır. Çalışmanın amacı fen ve teknoloji öğretmen
adaylarının öğretme ve öğrenme kavramları, öğrenme yaklaşımları ve öz-yeterlilik
inançları arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Elde edilen bulguların değerlendirilmesiyle
araştırmacıların, eğitimcilerin, öğretmen adayı ve öğretmenlerin konuyla ilgili bilgi
sahibi olmaları ve fen eğitimi programlarının geliştirilmesi beklenmektedir.
Çalışmaya katılım tamimiyle gönüllülük temelinde olmalıdır ve katılmamaktan ötürü
ya da katılımdan vazgeçme sonunda olumsuz hiçbir sonuç olmayacaktır.
Cevaplarınız tamimiyle gizli tutulacak ve sadece araştırmacılar tarafından
değerlendirilecektir; elde edilecek bilgiler bilimsel yayımlarda kullanılacaktır.
Anket, genel olarak kişisel rahatsızlık verecek soruları içermemektedir. Ancak,
katılım sırasında sorulardan ya da herhangi başka bir nedenden ötürü kendinizi
rahatsız hissederseniz cevaplama işini yarıda bırakıp çıkmakta serbestsiniz. Böyle
bir durumda anketi uygulayan kişiye, anketi tamamlamadığınızı söylemek yeterli
olacaktır. Anket sonunda, bu çalışmayla ilgili sorularınız cevaplanacaktır. Bu
çalışmaya katıldığınız için şimdiden teşekkür ederiz. Çalışma hakkında daha fazla
bilgi almak için Semra Saçıcı ile iletişim kurabilirsiniz (E-posta:
Bu çalışmaya tamamen gönüllü olarak katılıyorum ve istediğim zaman yarıda
kesip çıkabileceğimi biliyorum. Verdiğim bilgilerin bilimsel amaçlı yayımlarda
kullanılmasını kabul ediyorum. (Formu doldurup imzaladıktan sonra uygulayıcıya
geri veriniz).
İsim Soyad Tarih İmza
----/----/-----
94
APPENDIX C
BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS SURVEY
Sayın Öğretmen Adayı,
Bu anket sizin öğretmen, öğrenci, öğretmenlik mesleği gibi kavramlar hakkındaki
düşüncelerinizi ölçmek için hazırlanmıştır. Bu sorulara vereceğiniz yanıtlar,
araştırma amacıyla kullanılacak, ve gizli tutulacaktır. Öğretmen adayı olarak
vereceğiniz cevaplar, öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının geliştirilmesine önemli
katkılarda bulunacaktır. Sizlerin görüşleri bizler için çok önemlidir.
Yardımlarınız için teşekkür ederim.
Araş. Gör. Semra Saçıcı
Bölüm I. Kişisel Bilgiler
1. GPA: ____________________
2. Sınıfınız: 1 2 3 4
3. Cinsiyetiniz: Kız Erkek
4. Annenizin eğitim durumu:
İlkokul mezunu Ortaokul mez. Lise mez. 2-yıllık yüksekokul mez.
4-yıllık fakülte mez. Yüksek lisans/doktora mez. Okur-yazar değil/terk
5. Babanızın eğitim durumu:
İlkokul mezunu Ortaokul mez. Lise mez. 2-yıllık yüksek okul mez.
4-yıllık fakülte mez. Yüksek lisans/doktora mez. Okur-yazar değil/terk
6. Annenizin mesleği: _______________________
7. Babanızın mesleği: ________________________
8. Mezunun olduğunuz lise türü:
Genel lise Süper Lise Anadolu Lisesi Fen Lisesi
Teknik Lise Meslek Lisesi Anadolu Öğretmen Lisesi
Diğerleri (lütfen belirtiniz)__________
9. Mezun olunca öğretmenlik mesleğini yapmayı düşünüyor musunuz?
Evet Hayır
95
APPENDIX D
TEACHING AND LEARNING CONCEPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE (TLCQ)
Aşağıda öğrenme ve öğretme hakkında bazı görüşlere yer verilmektedir. Lütfen her
ifadeyi dikkatle okuyunuz. İfadelere katılma derecenizi uygun seçeneği işaretleyerek
gösteriniz.
Kes
inli
kle
Kat
ılıy
oru
m
Kat
ılıy
oru
m
Kar
arsı
zım
Kat
ılm
ıyoru
m
Kes
inli
kle
Kat
ılm
ıyoru
m
1. Bir öğretmen için öğrencilerinin hislerini
anlamak önemlidir.
2. Öğretim, öğrencileri bilgiyi keşfetmeye
cesaretlendirmek değil, öğrencilere doğru ve tam
bilgi sağlamaktır.
3. Öğrenme demek, öğrencilerin keşfetmek,
tartışmak ve düşüncelerini ifade etmek için bol
fırsatlara sahip olmaları demektir.
4. İyi sınıflar öğrencileri düşünmeye ve
birbirleriyle etkileşmeye teşvik edecek
demokratik ve özgür bir atmosfere sahiptir.
5. Öğrenme, öğretmenin öğrettiklerini
hatırlamak demektir.
6. Etkili öğretim, öğrencileri daha fazla
tartışmaları ve etkinliklere katılmaları için
cesaretlendirir.
7. Öğretme için geleneksel ders verme yöntemi
en iyi yöntemdir. Çünkü daha fazla bilgi
içermektedir.
8. Öğretme, basitçe ders konularını anlatmak,
sunmak ve açıklamaktır.
9. İyi öğretim, sınıfta en çok öğretmen
konuştuğunda olur.
10. Öğrenme, aslında tekrar ve uygulamadan
oluşur.
11. Öğrencilerin fikirleri önemlidir ve bu fikirler
üzerinde dikkatle durulmalıdır.
12. Öğretmenler öğrencilerin yaptıkları şeyler
üzerinde daima kontrol sahibi olmalıdır.
96
13. Bir öğretmenin başlıca görevi öğrencilere
bilgi vermek, onlara tekrarlar ve uygulamalar
yaptırmak ve ne hatırladıklarını test etmektir.
14. Ders süresince öğrencilerin ilgisini ders
kitapları üzerinde tutmak önemlidir.
15. Her çocuk biriciktir ya da özeldir ve kendine
özel gereksinimlerine uygun bir eğitim alma
hakkına sahiptir.
16. İyi öğrenciler derste sessiz olurlar ve
öğretmenin öğrettiklerini takip ederler.
17. Öğretimin odağı bilgi alışverişi değil,
öğrencilerin kendi deneyimleri ile bilgiyi
yapılandırmalarına yardım etmektir.
18. En iyisi öğretmenlerin sınıfta olabildiği kadar
çok otorite uygulamalarıdır.
19. Farklı öğrencilere farklı amaçlar ve
beklentiler uygulanmalıdır.
20. Öğrenme esas olarak, olabildiği kadar çok
bilgiyi özümlemeyi içerir.
21. Öğrencilerin kontrol altında tutulmaları için
daima azarlanmaları gerekir.
22. İyi öğretmenler, yanıtları kendi başlarına
düşünüp bulmaları için öğrencilerini daima
cesaretlendirirler.
23. Bir öğretmenin görevi, öğrencilerin yanlış
öğrendikleri kavramları kendi kendilerine
düzeltmelerini sağlamak değil, öğretmenin
hemen düzeltmesidir.
24. Öğrenciler kontrol altına alınmadıkça,
öğrenme gerçekleşemez.
25. İyi öğretmenler daima öğrencilerinin
kendilerini önemli hissetmelerini sağlarlar.
26. Öğretmeyi öğrenmek, basitçe ders
anlatanların fikirlerini sorgulamadan uygulamak
demektir.
27. Bir şeyi daha sonra hatırlayabildiğimde onu
gerçekten öğrenmişimdir.
28. Öğretim, öğrenciler arasındaki bireysel
farklılıklara uyacak kadar esnek olmalıdır.
29. Bir öğretmenin başlıca rolü, öğrencilere bilgi
aktarmaktır.
30. Öğrencilere fikirlerini ifade etmeleri için pek
çok fırsat verilmelidir.
97
APPENDIX E
LEARNING APPROACH QUESTIONNAIRE (LAQ)
Aşağıda öğrenme yaklaşımları hakkında bazı görüşlere yer verilmektedir. Lütfen her
ifadeyi dikkatle okuyunuz. İfadelere katılma derecenizi uygun seçeneği işaretleyerek
gösteriniz.
Kes
inli
kle
Kat
ılıy
oru
m
Kat
ılıy
oru
m
Kat
ılm
ıyoru
m
Kes
inli
kle
Kat
ılm
ıyoru
m
1. Genellikle ilk bakışta zor gibi görünen konuları
anlamak için çok çaba sarfederim.
2. Bir konuya çalışırken, öğrendiğim yeni bilgileri
eskileriyle ilişkilendirmeye çalışırım.
3. Ders çalışırken, öğrendiğim konuları günlük hayatta
nasıl kullanabileceğimi düşünürüm.
4. Konuları en iyi, öğretmenin anlattığı sırayı
düşündüğümde hatırlarım.
5. Öğrenmek zorunda olduğum konuları ezberlerim.
6. Önemli konuları tam olarak anlayana kadar tekrar
ederim.
7. Öğretmenler, öğrencilerin sınavda çıkmayacak
konulara çok fazla zaman harcamalarını beklememelidir.
8. Bir kez çalışmaya başladığımda, her konunun ilgi
çekici olacağına inanırım.
9. Derslerde edindiğim veya kitaplardan okuduğum
bilgiler hakkında sık sık kendime sorular sorarım.
10. Konuları birbiri ile ilişkilendirmenin yeni bir konu
hakkında genel bir fikir vermesi bakımından faydalı
olduğunu düşünürüm.
11. Anladığımdan iyice emin olana kadar ders yada
laboratuar notlarımı tekrar tekrar okurum.
12. Bir konu hakkında çok fazla araştırma yapmanın
zaman kaybı olduğunu düşündüğümden, sınıfta yada
ders notlarında anlatılanları detaylı bir şekilde çalışırım.
98
13. Okumam için verilen kaynakları (kitap gibi),
anlamını tam olarak anlayıncaya kadar okurum.
14. Gerçek olaylara dayanan konuları, varsayıma
dayanan konulardan daha çok severim.
15. Bir konuda öğrendiğim bilgiyi başka bir konuda
öğrendiğimle ilişkilendirmeye çalışırım.
16. Benim için teknik terimlerin ne anlama geldiğini
anlamanın en iyi yolu ders kitabındaki tanımı
hatırlamaktır.
17. Bulmaca ve problemler çözerek mantıksal sonuçlara
ulaşmak beni heyecanlandırır.
18. Genelde okumam için verilen materyalin bana
sağlayacağı faydayı düşünmem.
19. Konuları ezberleyerek öğrenirim.
20. Çoğunlukla, konuları gerçekten anlamadan okurum.
21. Bir konuyla ilgili verilen fazladan okumalar kafa
karıştırıcı olabileceğinden sadece derste
öğrendiklerimize parallel olarak tavsiye edilen birkaç
kitaba bakarım.
22. Ekstra birşeyler yapmanın gereksiz olduğunu
düşündüğüm için, çalışmamı genellikle derste verilen
bilgiyle sınırlarım.
99
APPENDIX F
SCIENCE TEACHING EFFICACY BELIEFS INSTRUMENT (STEBI-B)
Aşağıda fen bilgisi öğretimine yönelik düşünceler göreceksiniz. Belirtilen ifadelere
ne derecede katıldığınızı ya da katılmadığınızı ilgili seçeneği işaretleyerek belirtiniz.
Kes
inli
kle
Kat
ılıy
oru
m
Kat
ılıy
oru
m
Kar
arsı
zım
Kat
ılm
ıyoru
m
Kes
inli
kle
Kat
ılm
ıyoru
m
1. Eğer bir öğrenci fen dersinde herzamankinden
daha iyi ise, bunun nedeni çoğunlukla öğretmenin
daha fazla çaba harcamasıdır.
2. Fen konularını öğretmek için sürekli daha iyi
yöntemler bulacağımı düşünüyorum.
3. Ne kadar çok çaba harcasamda fen bilgisi
konularını öğretirken yeterince etkili olamayacağım.
4. Fen bilgisi kavramlarını etkili bir şekilde
öğretebilmek için gerekli basamakları biliyorum.
5. Öğrencilerin fen bilgisi dersi notlarının iyiye
gitmesi genellikle öğretmenin daha etkili bir öğretim
yöntemi kullanmasının sonucudur.
6. Öğrencilerin fen bilgisi dersinde yaptıkları
deneyleri takip etmede yeterince etkili
olamayacağımı düşünüyorum.
7. Fen bilgisi dersini genellikle etkili bir şekilde
öğretemeyeceğim.
8. Öğrencilerin fen bilgisi dersinde başarısız
olmasının nedeni büyük bir olasılıkla etkili olmayan
fen öğretimidir.
9. İyi bir öğretimle, öğrencilerin fen bilgisi
dersindeki bilgi yetersizliklerinin üstesinden
gelinebilir.
10. Öğrencilerin fen bilgisi dersindeki başarısının
düşük olmasından öğretmen sorumlu tutulamaz.
11. Fen bilgisi dersinde başarısız olan bir öğrencinin
başarısının artması genellikle öğretmenin daha fazla
ilgi göstermesinin sonucudur.
100
12. Etkili bir şekilde öğretecek kadar fen
kavramlarından iyi anlıyorum.
13. Fen bilgisi dersini öğretirken öğretmenin daha
fazla çaba harcaması, bazı öğrencilerin başarısını çok
az oranda değiştirir.
14. Öğrencilerin fen bilgisi dersindeki başarısından
genellikle öğretmen sorumludur.
15. Öğrencinin fen bilgisi dersindeki başarısı,
öğretmenin etkili fen öğretimi ile doğrudan ilgilidir.
16. Fen bilgisi deneyleriyle ilgili soruları açıklamada
zorlanırım.
17. Öğrencilerin fen bilgisi dersi ile ilgili sorularını
genellikle cevaplarım.
18. Fen dersini öğretmek için gerekli becerilere sahip
olacağımdan endişeliyim.
19. Eğer seçim hakkı verilseydi, okul müdürünü veya
müfettişleri beni değerlendirmesi için dersime
çağırmazdım.
20. Fen kavramlarını anlamada zorlanan
öğrencilerime nasıl yardımcı olacağımı bilemem.
21. Fen bilgisi dersini öğretirken öğrencilerden
gelecek soruları her zaman hoş karşılarım.
22. Öğrencilere fen bilgisi dersini sevdirmek için ne
yapmam gerektiğini bilmiyorum.
23. Bir veli çocuğunun fen dersine daha fazla ilgi
duyduğunu belirtiyorsa, bunun nedeni büyük
olasılıkla öğretmenin dersteki performansıdır.
101
APPENDIX G
DASTT-C INSTRUMENT SHEET
Aşağıdaki kutucuğa kendinizi, “fen ve teknoloji öğretmeni” olarak sınıf ortamında
düşünüp çiziniz ve aşağıdaki soruları cevaplayınız.
Resminizde, öğretmen ne yapıyor?
Resminizde, öğrenciler ne yapıyor?
102
APPENDIX H
DASTT-C SCORE SHEET
I. TEACHER
Activity
Demonstrating Experiment/Activity ____________________________________
Lecturing/Giving Directions (teacher talking) ____________________________
Using Visual Aids (chalkboard, overhead, and charts) _____________________
Position
Centrally located (head of class) ______________________________________
Erect Posture (not sitting or bending down) _____________________________
Teacher Total: ____
II. STUDENTS
Activity
Watching and Listening (or so suggested by teacher behavior) ______________
Responding to Teacher/Text Questions_________________________________
Position
Seated (or so suggested by classroom furniture) __________________________
Students Total: ____
III. ENVIRONMENT
Inside
Desks are arranged in rows (more than one row) __________________________
Teacher desk/table is located at the front of the room_______________________
Laboratory organization (equipment on teacher desk or table) ________________
Symbols of Teaching (ABC’s, chalkboard, bulletin boards, etc.) ______________
Symbols of Science Knowledge (science equipment, lab instruments, wall charts,
etc.) _____________________________________________________________
Environment Total: ______
TOTAL SCORE (PARTS I + II + III) =_______
103
APPENDIX I
HISTOGRAMS of the SET 1 and SET 2 VARIABLES
104
APPENDIX J
SCATTER PLOTS of the SET 1 AND SET 2 VARIABLES
105
APPENDIX K
SOME EXAMPLES from DASTT-C
106
107
108
APPENDIX L
TEZ FOTOKOPİ İZİN FORMU
ENSTİTÜ
Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Uygulamalı Matematik Enstitüsü
Enformatik Enstitüsü
Deniz Bilimleri Enstitüsü
YAZARIN
Soyadı : SAÇICI
Adı : SEMRA
Bölümü : İLKÖĞRETİM FEN VE MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ
TEZİN ADI (İngilizce) : THE INTERRELATION BETWEEN PRE-SERVICE
SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING,
LEARNING APPROACHES AND SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS
TEZİN TÜRÜ : Yüksek Lisans Doktora
1. Tezimin tamamı dünya çapında erişime açılsın ve kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla
tezimin bir kısmı veya tamamının fotokopisi alınsın.
2. Tezimin tamamı yalnızca Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi kullancılarının erişimine
açılsın. (Bu seçenekle tezinizin fotokopisi ya da elektronik kopyası Kütüphane
aracılığı ile ODTÜ dışına dağıtılmayacaktır.)
3. Tezim bir (1) yıl süreyle erişime kapalı olsun. (Bu seçenekle tezinizin fotokopisi ya
da elektronik kopyası Kütüphane aracılığı ile ODTÜ dışına dağıtılmayacaktır.)
Yazarın imzası ............................ Tarih …………………
